
Do computers have a constitutional right to free speech? - cpeterso
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/opinion/free-speech-for-computers.html
======
maxko87
I think the author is placing too much emphasis on the moral/ethical
interpretation of free speech, and not enough on the legal implications, which
are the only ones that really matter here. That concluding statement, that we
are elevating machines above humans by "allowing" them free speech, seems to
be intended to incite fears of some sort of AI robots demanding rights and
liberties. In fact, the only reason questions of free speech for machines
arise (at least until the singularity) is for reasons like the one in the
Google case, in which it made perfect sense to classify the search results as
free speech.

------
stretchwithme
This is like asking if your telephone has freedom of speech. Or your sign. Or
your printing press. Or your corporation.

These are tools belonging to and used by people who have rights. A new tool is
covered by those same rights.

------
wmf
Rebuttal: [http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/were-not-censoring-you-
just-y...](http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/were-not-censoring-you-just-your-
computer/)

------
dsr_
Since nobody is arguing that the computer is a person (yet), the answer is no.
The computer does not have a right to free speech.

Obviously the corporation is responsible for the acts or speeches of its
tools. The question is, to what extent does a corporation have a right to free
speech?

Lots of laws, lawyers and judges have and will continue to have words about
that.

~~~
planetguy
_Obviously the corporation is responsible for the acts or speeches of its
tools. The question is, to what extent does a corporation have a right to free
speech?_

Is it? Or is the _programmer_ responsible for the speeches of the computer,
and hence does the computer's right to free speech extend from the
unquestionable free speech rights of its programmer rather than the more
questionable free speech rights of the company?

~~~
anamax
> of its programmer rather than the more questionable free speech rights of
> the company?

How does a group of people (a "company") have fewer free speech rights than an
individual? Is it that the people who make up companies have fewer free speech
rights than other people?

~~~
Hyena
Groups tend to have fewer free speech rights than individuals. A person can
usually shout whatever he wants from a street corner; 100 people will probably
need a permit and relatively few people see this as problematic.

------
tcarnell
First prove that a computer is capable of 'free speech' and forming opinions.
And if, in the very unlikely case that a computer could form an opinion even
slightly related to the human world, then the issue may become relevant.

However, it is extremely likely that a computer will never genuinely form its
own opinion about human issues such as birth control or racism.

But what about animals? Just because we lack the ability to understand their
communication (computers 'trick us' because they appear to communicate in
human dialect) doesn't mean they aren't harbouring controversial or illegal
views - should animals be condemned for theft and tax evasion?

~~~
planetguy
_> First prove that a computer is capable of 'free speech' and forming
opinions_

Alright, let's try some plausible examples with present-day technology. Let's
suppose I think people who use prostitutes are filthy perverts. I can say
"People who use prostitutes are filthy perverts" with no fear. On the other
hand, if I accuse a particular individual of being a filthy pervert, I may be
liable for slander. Suppose I set up a computer outside a brothel using face-
identification technology to determine who is going in and out of the brothel,
and then program my computer to automatically publish a list of
pronouncements: "Phil is a filthy pervert, James is a filthy pervert", and so
on. Are those my slanderous opinions, or those of the computer?

Similarly I can imagine all _sorts_ of fun you could have with a computer
programmed to automatically look through all available data for the
correlation between race and IQ, identify whatever the lowest-IQ race may be,
and then start sending racist letters to the editor of every major newspaper,
saying "Man, _[RACE P]_ is so stupid".

A computer may not have opinions, _but_ potentially objectionable speech can
be algorithmically generated.

------
gm
No. People do.

Neeext!

