Do any US states criminalize mere possession or viewing of child sexual abuse material without intent to distribute?

1. Federal baseline: possession and access are criminalized

At the federal level Congress criminalized not only distribution and production of CSAM but also receipt, possession and even “access[ing] with intent to view” such material—statutes in Chapter 110 of Title 18 (notably §§2252 and 2252A) carry felony penalties and mandatory minimums in many instances, and federal guidance treats possession as proof of abuse and a serious criminal offense ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

2. States generally follow suit; most criminalize possession and many criminalize viewing

National advocates and legal surveys report that every state has laws criminalizing possession and distribution of CSAM, while some states explicitly criminalize intentional viewing or have statutory language that reaches viewing as well as possession; state penalties vary but are typically felonies ^{[3] [6]}. For example, Pennsylvania’s statute defines “child sexual abuse material” and makes both knowing possession and “intentionally views” CSAM offenses, showing that some states expressly reach viewing as a standalone culpable act ^[7].

3. Variation in definitions, penalties and statutory scope

Although the broad pattern is consistent—possession/distribution are illegal—states differ on key points: what counts as CSAM (some include “simulated” or “artificially generated” depictions), whether viewing alone is criminal, whether possession without intent to distribute carries the same mandatory minima, and what affirmative defenses or thresholds (e.g., limited quantities or prompt reporting) exist ^{[8] [6] [7]}. The federal scheme contains distinct provisions and sentencing enhancements for offenses involving very young children or prior convictions and treats computer-generated material that is “virtually indistinguishable” from real children as criminal under certain statutes ^{[2] [8]}.

4. Recent wave of state updates to cover AI-generated material

Concern about synthetic imagery prompted new legislation: dozens of states have moved to explicitly include AI-generated or computer-edited CSAM in state codes—researchers document that as of 2024–2025 most states updated CSAM statutes to account for artificially generated images, reflecting policymakers’ intent to close perceived loopholes ^{[4] [3]}. Those updates change both definition and reach, sometimes clarifying that possession or knowing viewing of such artificially generated CSAM is an offense ^{[4] [7]}.

5. Legal tensions and defenses: free‑speech, virtual images, and affirmative defenses

Scholars and courts have long wrestled with the limits of criminalizing images that do not involve an actual abused child; the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition struck down portions of federal law criminalizing virtual child pornography as unconstitutional, and Congress and courts have since narrowed or adjusted statutes while preserving broad prohibitions on material that is obscene or “virtually indistinguishable” from real abuse ^{[9] [8]}. Some federal provisions and state statutes build in defenses or distinctions—EveryCRS notes affirmative defenses in certain possession-only contexts—so statutory reach is not monolithic ^[8].

6. What reporting does not fully supply and where uncertainty remains

The sources establish the clear baseline—federal law criminalizes possession and many states criminalize possession and sometimes viewing—but they do not provide a complete, state-by-state checklist in this packet of which exact states criminalize mere viewing absent any intent to distribute; available summaries suggest a majority do criminalize possession and a growing number expressly reach viewing, yet a precise list and the detailed wording of each state statute are not fully documented in the provided reporting ^{[3] [4] [7]}.