Volokh argues that AI output receives First Amendment protection, with possible limits
Eugene VolokhIn his May 21, 2025 Volokh Conspiracy analysis
Volokh argues that readers have a First Amendment interest in receiving AI output. He criticizes the court's tentative analysis while allowing that some negligence or product-liability claims might remain constitutionally permissible.
“I think the First Amendment does apply to such AI output”
Analysis
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
Analysis
About this source
Volokh argues that the First Amendment applies to AI output while leaving room for some harm-based claims.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
He describes the court's tentative refusal to treat the output as speech.
After the quotation
He discusses possible interests in protecting children and preventing negligently caused physical harm.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is the company's First Amendment defense. Volokh supports applying the amendment but expressly leaves open exceptions that could permit liability.
- 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
FIRE says chatbot output is speech and urges an immediate appeal
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
“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.”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
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
- Volokh argues that AI output receives First Amendment protection, with possible limits
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7197-volokh-argues-that-readers-have-a-first-amendment
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Volokh argues that AI output receives First Amendment protection, with possible limits". First published: 2026-10-29. Last updated: 2026-10-29. https://disputeindex.com/events/7197-volokh-argues-that-readers-have-a-first-amendment