Lidia Dewald
Staff Writer
Since the beginning of the internet, popular culture has always imagined what artificial intelligence might entail. I will be the first to admit I always found the idea of AI to be a slippery slope. Now, with the introduction of public access to AI and deepfake technology, I wonder how this will conflict with our First Amendment rights. As technology evolves and becomes increasingly invasive, how will the law prevent these technologies from being abused? Here, I will discuss some of the recent court filings across multiple states regarding abusive content generated by AI, specifically child sex abuse material or CSAM, and how the First Amendment is being used to protect the people creating this content.
AI is a rapidly advancing field of technology, one that people of all ages are exposed to. Many schools and teachers even use it for academic purposes, and now it is becoming normalized in most school environments. While I am not debating the ethics of outsourcing your thoughts to a machine, it does make me question the other potential impacts of allowing teenagers free rein with AI. An interesting case in point would be the recent federal lawsuit that Lancaster County Day School (LCDS) is currently facing. Over the course of a school year (November 2023 – May 2024) two male students created over 300 sexually explicit deepfake images of other female students. When this was anonymously reported to LCDS, the administrators allowed the abuse to continue without proper investigation.
According to the civil action court form it is stated, “When questioned by concerned parents about the school’s failure to act, Lindsay Deibler-Wallace, Assistant Head of Upper School, told the parents that ‘boys will be boys’.” (Does v LCDS complaint, June 15, 2026 p. 2). Even though it was reported, it was not taken seriously by administrators until unfathomable harm had been done to more than 15 victims. Even after the case has been brought to light, LCDS is still denying and seeking to avoid repercussions for its actions.
However, there are many legal unknowns in cases such as these. According to a Stanford article by Riana Pfefferkorn, “While legislators in Congress and around the United States have taken action in recent years to address some aspects of the AI CSAM problem, opportunities for further regulation or clarification remain.” (July 21, 2025). Pfefferkorn makes a clear point about the lack of laws and regulations to prevent these incidents from happening, and how to act when they do occur. Although this is a gray area of law, as we continue to technologically advance, we must do everything we can to prevent and protect children from being the victims of these deepfakes. This requires attention to be called to the issue.
In other cases, recent laws involving the creation of this material have been successfully challenged and appealed on the grounds of the First Amendment. The Ground News headline, “Federal appeals court says First Amendment protects possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse images” is bound to make heads turn and grapple with fear, and rightfully so. After reviewing the actual record of the case, it was clear to me that while that does sound insane, it is factual.
In the case of United States v. Steven Anderegg, a successful argument was made for the possession and creation of AI generated CSAM under the First Amendment. In simple terms, it can be boiled down to this: “Here, Anderegg challenges the count charging him with possessing obscene virtual CSAM. Anderegg relies on Stanley to argue that § 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to him.” However, it is reasonable to note that the case referenced was a case precedent sent more than 20 years ago, long before generative AI was possible. Additionally, this case allows obscene material to be possessed in the home, and was later proven to not be applicable in cases of CSAM.
Andereggs main defense is that the material was possessed privately, and was not depicting real individuals, and therefore prosecuting him for this is against his First Amendment rights. There is a larger argument at stake against this, in my opinion.
Given the fact that there are countless other cases circling around out there about AI, I find it is relevant to discuss how this material is created in the first place. Let’s assume that most of us understand the way AI imagery works: you give it a prompt, and it will search databases, look at other images of similar things, and create a smoothed-out image of all the other images it looked at. As Pefferkorn relays in her article, “Some AI-generated imagery depicts children who do not exist in real life, though the AI models used to create such material are commonly trained on actual abuse imagery.” So, if we are putting aside the deepfake, “udify” tools and face swapping genres of AI and narrow it down to just generative AI, which was used by Andereggs, it is clear that while the photos may not be “real” they still may be using real images of abuse indirectly.
With all those points in mind, a call to action is warranted. I believe heavily in the First Amendment, and I do feel as though it encompasses a lot. However, we as a country need to set precedents and bring justice to the people who believe that creating AI-generated CSAM is part of their rights as an American. There is no reason any right-minded individual should possess or create this material. If we continue to allow this abuse to perpetuate, we will be letting down the youth of today, the future leaders of tomorrow, and generations of children to come.
