The traditional definition of child pornography under Texas Penal Code, Section 43.26 includes any visual material depicting an actual child (under 18) engaged in sexual conduct. Historically, this meant the law targeted photos or videos of real minors. Purely fictional or computer-generated images were not explicitly covered by older statutes.
Using real children’s likenesses
In 2023, Texas updated its law to address so-called deepfakes and edited images that use a real child’s image. House Bill 2700 (2023) expanded “prohibited visual material” to include any depiction of a minor who is recognizable as a real person and whose image or likeness was used or adapted with AI or software.
Purely AI-generated images (fictional children)
Of course, the next question is what about AI content that does not use any real child’s image, but depicts a completely fictional child in a sexual scenario? Until recently, Texas law did not clearly criminalize such material if no actual minor was identifiable. That gap is closing.
Senate Bill 20
In 2025, Texas lawmakers approved new measures, including Senate Bill 20, to ban the creation or possession of any obscene visual material that appears to depict a minor, even if it is entirely computer-generated. This prohibition covers AI-generated images, cartoons and animations depicting child characters in sexual acts. Under the new law, possessing or distributing AI-created child pornography (with no real child involved) will be a state jail felony in Texas, punishable by up to 2 years in prison (with higher penalties for repeat offenders).
Senate Bill 1621
Another bill, SB 1621, updates the legal definitions to distinguish a “depiction of a child” (real minor) from a “depiction of a computer-generated child,” and enhances penalties if an actual child was used or if the depicted child is under 10 years old. In short, Texas law is evolving to treat AI-generated sexual images of minors as child porn, whether a real child was involved in the image’s creation.
First Amendment concerns
It is worth noting that these new bans on purely fictional depictions may invite constitutional challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court previously struck down a law that criminalized pornographic material that “appeared to be” a minor (when no real minors were used), on grounds that it violated free speech. Texas’s approach is to target “obscene” depictions of fictitious children, which is content with no serious value that appeals to prurient interest, and not protected by the First Amendment. Lawmakers and courts are navigating a delicate balance between free expression and the compelling interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation, but any sexualized depiction of children (even AI-created) is likely to be viewed by Texas authorities as contraband and prosecuted aggressively.