A Wisconsin judge dismissed charges against a man accused of creating and distributing AI-generated child sexual abuse material, citing First Amendment precedent.
— Read on www.kptv.com/2026/09/01/federal-judge-rules-that-ai-generated-child-sex-abuse-material-is-protected-under-first-amendment/
Discover more from The Oakland County Child Killer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The more we descend into this abyss, the more I believe it’s time for another flood. In what world is ANY images of child sex acceptable? I’m sure that our forefathers never intended for our first amendment rights to include kiddie porn.
Continuous bemoaning over the fact that the law isn’t keeping up/can’t keep up with technology, but legislators don’t take their jobs seriously beyond fund-raising. Drafting legislation is apparently too hard. This Seventh Circuit judge relying on US Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court is too focused on overturning stays and case law that interferes with their boss’ whims. And we have normalized predators in high office and high positions. Including on the Supreme Court. Can’t wait to see what they do with this one–if they even grant cert on the appeal.
Whatever happened to INTENT?
There was certainly intent to groom the 15-year-old boy he sent some of the images to.
It seems unfair that we can ban artificial fake children, the “realistic child sex dolls”, but not artificial fake CSA images.
But it’s unlikely the serious pervs would have AI images only, on their hard-drives, so we can still get them for whatever real “known images”, (CSA images from cases wherein there is documentation of the identity of the victims, documentation of their abuser’s identity, and documentation of the identity of the “pornographer” who made the images, if not the abuser), are in their collection of images.
Here is something I find even more disturbing, which rarely gets any press-publicity;
“More than 90% of child sexual abuse images on internet are ‘self-generated'”
“More than 90% of websites found to contain child sexual abuse featured “self-generated” images extorted from victims as young as three, according to an internet watchdog”.
But that was 2024. Since then, ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse images with no discernible connection to an adult extortionist have been increasing. Speculation is, this is probably peers copycatting peers copycatting peers. Something like this; one of the Roblox ‘coercion’ victims was perhaps persuaded to make a video of themselves pulling down younger siblings undergarment to expose genitals, and laughing. This is a “funny prank”, they think. They share the video with peer friends, who subsequently make a similar video with a sibling and share it; “I made this funny video”, inspiring even more videos in their social circles. There is no adult extortionist for the later videos, they become socially normalized juvenile subculture activity.
https://news.sky.com/story/self-generated-images-found-on-92-of-websites-containing-child-sexual-abuse-with-victims-as-young-as-three-13049628
I did not find support for your statements about post-2024 self-generated CSAM in the article you cite. Do you have another citation? What are you suggesting about CSAM images that have no discernible connection to an adult extortionist? Is the concern the simple prevalence or increase, or are you hinting at a different argument/concern?
I didn’t express myself clearly, there. Apologies for that.
(“The piano has been drinking, not me” -Tom Waits). Yes, thank you Tom. I blame the keyboard. Sometimes what it types isn’t what I had intended to say.
I didn’t mean to downplay the serious problems of AI generated CSAM, sexuaI AI modified images of real persons especially minors, etc. I shouldn’t have said, that any form of CSA images exploitation is more disturbing to me than another.
I shouldn’t have said, ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse images with no discernible connection to an adult extortionist have been increasing “since 2024”. I’m certain that they have been increasing, alongside ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse images provably incited by “older person extorted-coerced” ones, since the time that academia “discovered” them. (“In 2000, Finkelhor et al. reported the results of a youth internet safety survey in which the definitions of online victimization only included requests by perpetrators for a child to engage in sexual talk or meet in person. There was no consideration of the possibility children could be coerced to “self-produce” CSEM”). Self-produced CSA images surely existed before that, but they couldn’t “officially” exist until a terminology & definition for them had been constructed.
It’s difficult to discuss this topic at all, since some academics deny that coercion-free ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse images are “a thing” at all, or even could be. For example, in the study linked below; “Five Forms of Coerced “Self-Produced” Child Sexual Exploitation Material: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis”, the authors define all five ‘forms’ they identify, as inherently coercion-involved. Summed up thus; “We assert that children are never responsible for their own exploitation…”.
I could agree with that, in fact I hold an even more extreme position…that any minor who creates-records nude or sexual images of themselves, or displays themselves in such a manner via live broadcast such as webcams, has been victimized by the existence of the digital images programs and equipment enabling them to do that – being built into every G-D electronic device. If there was no digital images technology, none of those images could or would exist. They are a constant menace, the cause of incalculable amounts of sexual abuse-exploitation and suffering, and humanity would be better off without them.
But in my opinion, it’s folly to imagine that coercion-free ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse images can be defined out of existence. “They don’t exist, because we defined them as impossible”, won’t make the images go away or prevent others being generated in the future.
What I should have said, is that since 2024, there have been cases which suggest to me that we are rapidly approaching a time when minors recording themselves in sexual acts -solo, or with their siblings, and/or their friends – is normative behaviour within their social subculture. There would surely continue to be sextortion-coercion involved in some cases, but a time when minors commonly ask each other; “would you like to see my porn videos?”, and they won’t be talking about videos they downloaded from Pornhub. You may recall, there was a time when “youth sexting” was a cause of much concern…today there numerous studies declaring; “Sexting in Young Adults: A Normative Sexual Behaviour”.
For example, Christian Scribben, 17. “A Florida teenager is facing charges as an adult after he allegedly convinced children to send him sexual abuse material over a popular online gaming site called Roblox… It started with a tip that the sheriff’s office received on Feb. 28 from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). It said that a user in Marion County was directing children to molest their younger siblings and produce child sexual abuse material on Roblox”.
Yes, I think Scribben qualifies as “an adult” perpetrator, but what’s truly disturbing about this guy, is that he did NOT extort these children as young as 8 years old. There’s no suggestion that Scribben threatened them, nor even that he bribed them.
He simply portrayed himself to be a 12 year old boy, a peer, and then asked 4-5 minors every day (for at least a year! my God!) if they would be willing to make pornographic videos for him, “starring” themselves and a younger sibling. If they agreed, as many apparently did, he would “direct” them with explicit instructions exactly what he wanted them to do. All he had to do, was ASK!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11545210/