FIRE says chatbot output is speech and urges an immediate appeal
Foundation for Individual Rights and ExpressionFree speech advocacy group, announcing a friend-of-the-court brief it filed in the case
FIRE argues that assembling words to convey information is the essence of speech, whatever tool produces it, and warns that if AI output is not speech, plaintiffs could impose liability for distributing ideas in ways courts have rejected for other media.
Responding to
The First Amendment bars Megan Garcia's claims against Character.AI because they would impose liability for expressive content that the platform's users have a right to receive.
“Contrary to the court’s uncertainty about whether “words strung together by an LLM” are speech, assembling words to convey messages and information is the essence of speech. ... If it is not speech, plaintiffs will be able to impose liability for the distribution of ideas in a way that courts have steadfastly rejected for other forms of media.”
Official statement
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide
Character.AI argued in federal court that the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a 14-year-old's suicide, because the claims target speech its users have a right to receive. The mother's lawyers argued that the chatbot's output is not protected speech. A judge declined to treat it as speech at an early stage, and the case later settled.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
FIRE announces that it filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies urging immediate appellate review of the court's First Amendment ruling, and summarizes the brief's argument that chatbot output is speech.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
The brief FIRE asked the court for leave to file, arguing that the May 21, 2025 order failed to account for the expressive nature of AI output and that the question deserved immediate appellate review. The court denied leave to file it on July 3, 2025. Court filing as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP).
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Court docket as mirrored by CourtListener (RECAP). The entries record Character Technologies' June 18, 2025 motion to certify an interlocutory appeal; motions for leave to file amicus briefs by Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, FIRE, and NetChoice with Chamber of Progress; and the July 3, 2025 order denying those motions for leave.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
FIRE says its brief urges immediate appellate review of the May 21, 2025 order and summarizes Character Technologies' First Amendment argument.
After the quotation
FIRE says the district court gave the First Amendment question less consideration than it deserved. On July 3, 2025, the court denied FIRE leave to file the brief, along with several other proposed friend-of-the-court briefs.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is Character.AI's argument that the First Amendment bars tort claims seeking to hold it liable for its chatbots' output. Defended or excused: FIRE argues that chatbot output is protected speech and that treating it otherwise would expose its distribution to liability, which supports Character.AI's position. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because FIRE's mention of a limited number of defined exceptions to free speech does not qualify its conclusion about this case.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEFF says chatbot output can be protected expression but harms can be addressed
Electronic Frontier Foundation
“Far from being the speech of a robot, chatbot output often reflects human expression that is entitled to First Amendment protection. ... None of this is to suggest that chatbots cannot be regulated or that the harms they cause cannot be addressed. The First Amendment simply requires that those regulations be appropriately tailored to the harm to avoid unduly burdening the right to express oneself through the medium of a chatbot, or to receive the information it provides.”Read statement
Clay Calvert says chatbot output is speech
“The fact that users’ inputs influence speech produced by chatbots doesn’t change the fact that chatbot output is speech. ... It would be a mistake for Conway to conclude that Garcia doesn’t involve speech.”Read statement
Tech Justice Law Project welcomes the court's First Amendment ruling
Tech Justice Law Project
“This decision is truly historic. It sends a clear signal to companies developing and deploying LLM-powered products at scale that they cannot evade legal consequences for the real-world harm their products cause, regardless of the technology’s novelty. Crucially, the defendants failed to convince the Court that those harms were a result of constitutionally-protected speech, which will make it harder for companies to argue so in the future, even when their products involve machine-mediated “conversations” with users.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- FIRE says chatbot output is speech and urges an immediate appeal
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5723-fire-argues-that-assembling-words-to-convey-information
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "FIRE says chatbot output is speech and urges an immediate appeal". First published: 2026-10-14. Last updated: 2026-10-14. https://disputeindex.com/events/5723-fire-argues-that-assembling-words-to-convey-information