Your fact-checks will appear here
Reporting suspected possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline or to law enforcement can and often does spark investigation...
Federal law criminalizes knowing possession, production and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and has increasingly treated passive “browsing” as risk-bearing behavior; prosecutors rel...
Unintentional viewing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) can trigger legal scrutiny; courts and federal guidance treat “knowing” viewing as the felony baseline, but case law shows that even automat...
False or malicious reports of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) can carry legal risk, but statutory reforms like the REPORT Act and related proposals focus liability primarily on providers and vendor...
An admission of having seen CSAM can be strong evidence but by itself is often legally insufficient to secure conviction without corroborating proof such as possession, distribution, creation, or fore...
Police must present probable cause to a neutral magistrate, swear an affidavit, and describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized when seeking a warrant to search for...
Privacy protections for seized digital devices in child sexual abuse material (CSAM) investigations are primarily shaped by Fourth Amendment warrant rules, federal statutes governing electronic commun...
The primary federal landscape under debate is the STOP CSAM Act of 2025 (S.1829/H.R.3921), which would narrow some immunities while also creating new limited liability protections and reporting duties...
Platforms and providers in the U.S. must report suspected child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to the CyberTipline/NCMEC under 18 U.S.C. §2258A; law does not force platforms to actively search but requi...
Yes — courts and law enforcement regularly obtain warrants based on online admissions, admissions by others, and corroborating digital traces; multiple recent cases show that a combination of a person...
Federal supervised release after CSAM convictions commonly includes multi-year terms (often 5 years to lifetime in practice) with special conditions such as Internet/computer restrictions, required co...
Evolving privacy and encryption debates in 2025 are tightening the trade‑offs between law enforcement access to metadata/device forensics and civil‑liberties protections: U.S. bills like the STOP CSAM...
In 2024–2025 U.S. federal law and pending federal bills expanded what platforms must report to NCMEC and pushed longer data preservation and vendor liability/guardrails — chiefly the REPORT Act (signe...
Courts evaluate intent and knowledge in darknet CSAM cases by weighing digital-forensic evidence, user behavior, and statutory standards that distinguish knowing or intentional possession from inadver...