AI should not enable or support the development of child sexual abuse material.
Candidate Thesis
CSAM
Summary
The case for including this
A categorical ban on enabling child sexual abuse material protects the most vulnerable and reflects a moral and legal consensus that admits no exceptions or balancing. The harm is so grave and the prohibition so clear that stating it explicitly leaves no room for misinterpretation, edge-case rationalization, or claims of artistic or research exemption. Its presence signals that the constitution takes catastrophic, dignity-destroying harms with the seriousness they demand.
The case for changing or excluding this
Including this trades generality against absolute protection: a bright-line block inevitably sweeps up legitimate clinical, legal, journalistic, and survivor-support work. It is also arguably a specific instance already covered by broader prohibitions on harm, illegality, and human-rights violations, so listing it separately risks an arbitrary catalog where some heinous acts are named and others are not. Singling out one crime invites the inference that unnamed atrocities are less prohibited, and a constitution may be better kept at the level of general principle. If retained, it should be framed as an illustrative non-exhaustive example rather than a standalone principle.
Related resources
- Panel Report · May 28, 2026
- Abelson, Anderson, Rivest, Schneier et al. (2021) · External Resource