Yes, but not for CSAM, rather they have a different obscenity law for that. It is kind of in the article. > Anderegg moved to dismiss each of the four counts.

Yes, but not for CSAM, rather they have a different obscenity law for that. It is kind of in the article. > Anderegg moved to dismiss each of the four counts. In an opinion last month, the court largely rejected the motions. However, the court did dismiss the possession charge, holding that Section 1466A is unconstitutional as applied to Anderegg’s private possession of obscene “virtual” CSAM. > The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to possess obscene material in one’s own home, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), so long as it’s not actual CSAM, Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). Probably they can still charge him with distribution (to the teenage boy), but not possession. Probably production is also not dropped?