Should AI chatbots have free speech rights? Court case could help decide

A legal battle in Florida is raising a big question about the future of artificial intelligence and free speech

Should AI chatbots have the same First Amendment rights as humans? That's what the company Character.ai is arguing in a lawsuit from the family of a 14-year-old boy

who died by suicide after interacting with one of its AI-generated characters

Character.ai is a platform that lets users chat with lifelike AI avatars

some of which are based on fictional characters. In this case, the boy, Sewell Setzer III, formed a romantic relationship with a chatbot

modeled after a character from the HBO series Game of Thrones. According to court documents, the chatbot, named Daenerys Targaryen

initially tried to dissuade Setzer from self-harm, but later brought the topic up again and asked

Have you actually been considering suicide? And Setzer replied, Yes. Soon after, he took his own life

Now his mother, Megan Garcia, is suing Character Technologies, the company behind the platform

claiming negligence, wrongful death, deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment. However, the company wants the case dismissed, arguing that its chatbot speech is protected by the First Amendment

Character.ai says the issue isn't what the chatbot said, but the rights of users to access content like it

They argue that millions of people find value in these bots and that restricting what the AI can say would limit users' rights

This viewpoint was echoed in a recent episode of the podcast Free Speech Unmuted on the Hoover Institution YouTube channel Eugene Valloch a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute agrees that it the rights of the listeners that matter

Even if a small fraction of the listeners or readers is harmed by this or choose to harm themselves based on this

nonetheless, we protect the speech for the benefit of other readers. Law professor Jane Bambauer shares that view

It seems pretty clear to me that now that the First Amendment has to apply

We have cases that, several cases at this point, that focus primarily on listener interests in receiving and interacting with content

However, Garcia's legal team says that argument doesn't hold up. In an article for Mashable, attorneys Medley Jane and Camille Carlton, who are working on Garcia's case

write that machines aren't people and shouldn't have the same rights. They argue that free speech protections require human intent, and AI doesn't have that

Because chatbots don't understand what they're saying, the lawyers argue their words shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment

If the judge sides with Garcia's family, it could force companies like Character.ai to change how their chatbots interact with users

potentially making them less realistic or emotionally engaging. A ruling is expected later this year, and it could help shape how the law treats AI speech going forward

For now, the case is being closely watched by both tech companies and legal experts

who see it as a test of where the line between human and machine should be drawn

For Straight Arrow News, I'm Lauren Keenan. For more on this story, download the Straight Arrow News app or visit san.com