Slashdot Mirror
Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech? (thebulletin.org)
One study found that 66% of tweets with links were posted by "suspected bots" -- with an even higher percentage for certain kinds of content. Now a new California law will require bots to disclose that they are bots.
But does that violate the bots' freedom of speech, asks Laurent Sacharoff, a law professor at the University of Arkansas. "Even though bots are abstract entities, we might think of them as having free speech rights to the extent that they are promoting or promulgating useful information for the rest of us," Sacharoff says. "That's one theory of why a bot would have a First Amendment free speech right, almost independent of its creators." Alternatively, the bots could just be viewed as direct extensions of their human creators. In either case -- whether because of an independent right to free speech or because of a human creator's right -- Sacharoff says, "you can get to one or another nature of bots having some kind of free speech right."
In previous Bulletin coverage, the author of the new California law dismisses the idea that the law violates free speech rights. State Sen. Robert Hertzberg says anonymous marketing and electioneering bots are committing fraud. "My point is, you can say whatever the heck you want," Hertzberg says. "I don't want to control one bit of the content of what's being said. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. All I want is for the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer. To me, that's a fraud element versus a free speech element."
Sacharoff believes that the issue of bots and their potential First Amendment rights may one day have its day in court. Campaigns, he says, will find that bots are helpful and that their "usefulness derives from the fact that they don't have to disclose that they're bots. If some account is retweeting something, if they have to say, 'I'm a bot' every time, then it's less effective. So sure I can see some campaign seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid," he says. "Ditto, I guess, [for] selling stuff on the commercial side."
But does that violate the bots' freedom of speech, asks Laurent Sacharoff, a law professor at the University of Arkansas. "Even though bots are abstract entities, we might think of them as having free speech rights to the extent that they are promoting or promulgating useful information for the rest of us," Sacharoff says. "That's one theory of why a bot would have a First Amendment free speech right, almost independent of its creators." Alternatively, the bots could just be viewed as direct extensions of their human creators. In either case -- whether because of an independent right to free speech or because of a human creator's right -- Sacharoff says, "you can get to one or another nature of bots having some kind of free speech right."
In previous Bulletin coverage, the author of the new California law dismisses the idea that the law violates free speech rights. State Sen. Robert Hertzberg says anonymous marketing and electioneering bots are committing fraud. "My point is, you can say whatever the heck you want," Hertzberg says. "I don't want to control one bit of the content of what's being said. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. All I want is for the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer. To me, that's a fraud element versus a free speech element."
Sacharoff believes that the issue of bots and their potential First Amendment rights may one day have its day in court. Campaigns, he says, will find that bots are helpful and that their "usefulness derives from the fact that they don't have to disclose that they're bots. If some account is retweeting something, if they have to say, 'I'm a bot' every time, then it's less effective. So sure I can see some campaign seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid," he says. "Ditto, I guess, [for] selling stuff on the commercial side."
Nice try. No, bots do not have free speech rights. The piece of pizza crust that I left in the box that's sitting on my kitchen counter also doesn't have free speech rights.
Now, are there any other stupid questions?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Laurent Sacharoff was revealed today to be a complete fuckwit.
Betteridge just called to say, "fuck no, bots don't have free speech rights".
You are welcome on my lawn.
we might think of them as having free speech rights
Or we could just use some common sense.
I have free speech rights. I can hold up a sign with message I want to convey. The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
Personally I would think that a bot's "speech" is really just an extension of the rights to free speech of the human creator of the bot. With the human right to free speech (at least in countries that have that right), there is also the responsibility and liability for what is said. The classic example is that of yelling "Fire!" in a theater. You are free to do this, but if you do, and there is not really a fire, you can be held responsible for injuries incurred by people trying to escape the non-existent fire. If you create a bot (program / algorithm that autonomously communicates on your behalf) and that bot makes untrue speech, I would think that you should be on the hook for slander or libel.
Quit being obtuse.
Try being a little deeper:
Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech?
Does a printing press have a right to Freedom of the Press?
Does a USER of a printing press have a right to Freedom of the Press?
Does a USER of a social media bot have a right to Free Speech?
IMHO That sort of argument stands a good chance of prevailing at the Supreme Court. Anonymous speech has already been ruled to be protected, even (especially) if in the form of political campaign literature, and the anonymity protected even if the speaker/poster loses a suit due to the speech itself being tortuous.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out.
Or we can just look at the last one, which took action legal against and jailed journalists who interfered with the administration's message, monitored their work and home phones and those of their families, and so on. We won't have to imagine it at all.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When the user of a press prints and distributes a pamphlet, everyone knows it is a pamphlet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism