Bear Brief, 22 Sep 2026
Sep 22, 2026 · 27 min · 11 segments
COURT: AI CSAM Covered under 1st Amendment | Bear Brief 22SEP26 \--- Don’t choose a permanent response to a temporary problem: DIAL '988' to get help. Patreon Link…
- Speakers
- BarryHost
Sep 22, 2026 · 27 min · 11 segments
COURT: AI CSAM Covered under 1st Amendment | Bear Brief 22SEP26 \--- Don’t choose a permanent response to a temporary problem: DIAL '988' to get help. Patreon Link…
A federal judge recently ruled that if CSAM, child abuse material, is entirely AI generated, depicts no real child and stays inside of your home, it's protected under the First Amendment.
This is about possession of CSAM, not production or distribution, which remains flatly illegal.
It's also only relevant when there is no living, quote, victim depicted as demonstrated in the case of a Utah man who just got five years in federal prison for AI altered images of actual teenagers found on his phone.
Man, it'd be a shame if he was to slip and fall into a sharpened toothbrush, wouldn't it? Law professor Ben Sobel of the University of Wisconsin explained, quote, the rationale here is that it's too intrusive under the First Amendment to reach into the home and regulate what media a person may possess there.
But that rationale does not extend to regulating what kind of material someone distributes or produces, end quote.
Even the judge who wrote the ruling seemed uneasy about it, all but begging the Supreme Court to step in and fix what he felt he couldn't touch himself, which says something.
A federal judge recently ruled that if CSAM, child abuse material, is entirely AI generated, depicts no real child and stays inside of your home, it's protected under the First Amendment.
This is about possession of CSAM, not production or distribution, which remains flatly illegal.
It's also only relevant when there is no living, quote, victim depicted as demonstrated in the case of a Utah man who just got five years in federal prison for AI altered images of actual teenagers found on his phone.
Man, it'd be a shame if he was to slip and fall into a sharpened toothbrush, wouldn't it? Law professor Ben Sobel of the University of Wisconsin explained, quote, the rationale here is that it's too intrusive under the First Amendment to reach into the home and regulate what media a person may possess there.
But that rationale does not extend to regulating what kind of material someone distributes or produces, end quote.
Even the judge who wrote the ruling seemed uneasy about it, all but begging the Supreme Court to step in and fix what he felt he couldn't touch himself, which says something.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.