Law Professors Argue Future Plausibility of Robots Earning Free Speech Rights

We live in a time where the conversation surrounding First Amendment rights is heavier than ever. From the right of personhood recognition in a corporation and union to the right of free speech to those whom only wish to speak hatefully towards other people, despite its age, First Amendment rights remain one of the most controversial topics to date. To add on top of the controversy, however, two law professors have now written a paper which argues in favor of the plausibility that, someday, we will equally grant the right of free speech to a strong artificial intelligence.

Toni M. Massaro of the University of Arizona and Helen Norton of the University of Colorado’s paper is meant to be seen as a thought experiment, which attempts to look at all of the arguments both in favor and in opposition to the prospect of a strong A.I. earning First Amendment rights. They argue that, even today, robotics and A.I. are already starting to push First Amendment doctrine in profound ways, which necessitates this conversation. They go on to say:

Adhering to one of the more common Free Speech theories, the scholars argue that the right of free speech could be feasibly granted to a strong A.I. under the rationalization that free speech isn’t actually based on the entity whom is speaking, but is rather based on the speech itself. It is because of this argument that corporations, unions, and even ships, no less, are granted personhood recognition to some extent today.

What this would do is emphasize on the value of speech in relation to how it affects those listening in. In other words, a strong A.I. wouldn’t be granted First Amendment rights because it’s proven itself sentient or is able to emulate “humanness” to our likening (whatever that might be), but rather will be determined based on how it affects the general conversation conducted by that of the audience.

It’s a strange argument to be had, but one of which contains some merit. The scholars provide a hypothetical scenario to explain:

Of course, there will always be those who challenge these notions that a robot attached with strong A.I. could ever truly convey speech worth value. To them, it requires emotion, sentience, and above all “humanness” (again, this is an incredibly vague term, which the scholars make note of and believe would still fall into favor of strong A.I.). For some people, robots, no matter how intelligent they might be and no matter how well they’re able to convince people of their sentience, there will always be something about them that they believe is “missing.”

The scholars don’t deny the possibility of these arguments containing enough weight in the future to deny First Amendment rights to strong A.I., but they do fear of its ramifications if it were actually adhered to. When keeping in mind of the argument that a strong A.I. could be granted First Amendment rights based solely on the speech’s value to the general audience listening in, how do we then define both “audience” and “value”?

If the opposing side were to win a court victory against the granting of First Amendment rights to a strong A.I., could the argument then be had that the “audience” being defined here is that of the government itself and the “value” being defined is based solely on the interests of those running the government? Scenarios like this could feasibly result in the establishment of new regulations of free speech, determined by an Orwellian government who bases the value of said speech solely on whether or not it adheres to their own interests.

According to the scholars, this risk alone would likely prevent any court from ultimately denying a strong A.I. First Amendment rights. At the very least, strong A.I. would be granted what is known as “derivative” First Amendment rights, which differs from the rights of free speech granted to natural persons insofar that it would only be granted to a strong A.I. so long it primarily values natural persons associated with it. Corporations are considered “derivative” First Amendment rights holders, because it then protects the people whom are employed with said corporations.

Whatever the case might be, whether a strong A.I. in the future is granted full First Amendment rights or is considered a holder of “derivative” First Amendment rights, the scholars envision a future of which said A.I. is, indeed, granted the right of free speech. Today, soft A.I. such as Siri couldn’t possibly be considered something of which provides speech worth much value, let alone speech extrapolated independently without human assistance. But then, as the scholars noted, Siri today is nothing compared to what Siri of the future will be able to achieve. Siri-ously!

Photo Credit: Fotosearch