Forgetting the Helpless

Below are some of the key terms and organizations mentioned in this blog:

AI – Artificial Intelligence

CSAM - Child sexual abuse material

GAI - Generative AI

NCMEC - The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

RAINN – Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network

“It doesn’t matter if the child agreed to it. It doesn’t matter if they sent the image themselves. If a minor is involved, it’s CSAM—and it’s illegal,” explains RAINN.

Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has been an issue in our country for years – and it is only getting worse with technological advancements like AI.

Anti-sexual assault organization RAINN (short for Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) explains that they believe that this abuse material is not “child pornography.” Instead, they share that “It’s evidence of child sexual abuse—and it’s a crime to create, distribute, or possess. CSAM includes both real and synthetic content, such as images created with artificial intelligence tools.”

How right they are.

When it comes to any sexually graphic material depicting a child in any form or fashion, it should be considered abuse.

Unfortunately, in today’s culture, there may be a few legal, disheartening (and upsetting) exceptions to this rule.

On August 25, a court ruling was made that some AI-generated images containing child sexual material could be protected by First Amendment rights. The court opinion explained that this decision occurred in a case against defendant Steven Anderegg, who was “charged with producing, distributing, and possessing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring such material to a minor under the age of sixteen.”

The opinion included that Anderegg had used “a generative artificial intelligence software” program allowing him to “create hyper-realistic images of prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit acts.”

Later in the document, the opinion also explained that Anderegg was able to use the AI software to create “hundreds” of graphic images, some of which portrayed “nude or semi-clothed” minors engaging in solo sexual acts as well as some with adults.

But it gets worse.

Regarding this case, The Washington Post reported that “Judge John Z. Lee, in the ruling for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue of virtual abuse material of children in the age of AI, suggesting that technological advances complicate existing legal precedent.”

Based on a previous ruling (Stanley v. Georgia), it was argued that under the First Amendment, individuals are entitled to possess obscenity privately in their homes.

The same Washington Post article also stated that Lee cited another previous precedent which: “[F]ound that [']virtual['] child sexual abuse material, also known as CSAM, not depicting a real person is not child pornography.”

But here’s the thing about said material – real or not – it graphically depicted children being abused.

And RAINN said it best – it’s child abuse.

To create the images mentioned, Anderegg had to be very specific in detailing what he wanted to see. Every crude position, every specification of age, every last detail of what he wanted to see, he had to explain for it to be generated. Then the software had to comb through code and existing information to create the visible pictures.

Cloudflare, an organization known for cybersecurity, explains this with regard to AI creation:

Artificial intelligence (AI) image generation is a type of generative AI for producing visual content. It uses mathematical analysis to identify and duplicate patterns within photos and illustrations. … AI image generators can create realistic-seeming photographs. They can also edit preexisting images. Like other types of generative AI, AI image generation models can interpret natural-language prompts and create images in response.

So, these images may not have been of “real” children, but the knowledge the software used to make them had to come from somewhere – which is concerning in itself.

For a while now, various forms of generative AI (GAI) have impacted our nation’s children through deepfakes and other altered photos. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) explained that GAI “is a powerful technology that enables a user to create new images, videos, audio and text based on user requests or prompts.”

In its 2025 CyberTipline, NCMEC recorded “more than 400,000 reports of exploitation with a GAI nexus,” and “more than 182,000 reports involved offenders possessing, generating or attempting to generate GAI CSAM.” Since the organization began tracking this crime in 2023, they have identified “more than 275 victims of GAI CSAM” and “more than 158,000 images and videos have been categorized as GAI CSAM.”

But as of August 2026, at least one judge thinks that we should call upon the Supreme Court to reevaluate how adults who create and view child abuse in virtual images in their own home are held accountable.

It’s a slippery slope.

And it seems like once again, today’s most vulnerable generation is being forgotten.