Taycheedah man challenges AI-generated child porn charges, cites First Amendment rights

[Artaxerxes II]

https://fox11online.com/news/local/tayc ... al-virtual

FOND DU LAC, Wis. (WLUK) – A man charged with possessing virtual child pornography is challenging the counts, arguing the First Amendment protects the material as free speech since it “is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children.”

Meillo Schneider, 20, faces nine counts of possession of child pornography. He has pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. He returns to court Aug. 4 for a status conference.

According to the criminal complaint, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children alerted the sheriff’s department about a Taycheedah address where the material was accessed.

“There was over 13,000 files included in the data provided by Amazon.com Inc. Corporation Service Company and Amazon Photos Trust and Safety Team. Det. Tikkanen briefly reviewed the material visually. Det. Tikkanen could see there were thousands of JPG and GIF files of anime/artistic renderings of child sexual abuse material,” the complaint states. “Some of these images were hard to distinguish if they were AI generated or if they were real, unidentified victims.”

Lt. Alex Volm with the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Office previously told FOX 11: "It's child pornography that can be considered life-like or photo realistic. So, it's not an actual person that's being depicted in the images, but it's a computer generated photo realistic image."

Possession of child pornography has been illegal in Wisconsin for decades. Wisconsin lawmakers passed a bill in 2024 which added AI-generated content to child pornography possession laws.

However, the four-page motion filed by attorney Timothy Hogan contends the statute is unconstitutional, citing recent court decisions.

He notes the reason why child pornography is illegal: “Child pornography, even if not obscene, may be banned without offending the First Amendment because of the government’s interest in protecting children that are exploited by the production process.”

But, with no actual people involved, Hogan contends the statute is improper.

“Indeed, the Ferber Court recognized that some works of child pornography may have value and that virtual images were an alternative and permissible means of expression. Because the (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) prohibited virtual pornography without regard to whether it was obscene, thereby prohibiting materials beyond the categories recognized in Miller and Ferber, it violated the First Amendment,” Hogan argued.

“The state did not charge Mr. Schneider with the possession of actual child pornography, and rightly so given the nature of the images he allegedly possessed. The state has chosen to prosecute Mr. Schneider for his alleged private possession of material it believes to be obscene, since if the materials were not obscene his alleged conduct would not meet the elements of the offense. Because the First Amendment protects the right of Mr. Schneider to see or read or view obscene materials in the privacy of his own home, this prosecution directly implicates, and violates, the First Amendment. Thus, in order for this prosecution to stand and survive scrutiny, it is the state that bears the burden to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that its application of Wisconsin Statute section 948.125 against Mr. Schneider is constitutional,” Hogan added.