Nita Farahany says chatbot output should be neither unprotected nor absolutely protected
Nita FarahanyLaw and philosophy professor at Duke University, in an essay for the Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara newsletter
Nita Farahany writes that denying First Amendment protection to some AI outputs risks catastrophic consequences for free speech, while absolute protection would leave people defenseless against systems built to erode cognitive autonomy. She criticizes Character Technologies' defense strategy as an attempt to evade accountability.
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.
“But here we reach an uncomfortable paradox. To argue that certain AI outputs lack First Amendment protection risks catastrophic consequences for free speech. ... Yet the opposite extreme, which is absolute First Amendment protection for all AI outputs, leaves us defenseless against systems deliberately engineered to erode our cognitive autonomy.”
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
An essay by Nita Farahany in the Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara newsletter on the Character.AI lawsuits, the First Amendment and what she calls cognitive liberty.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Farahany describes Character Technologies' defense in the case brought over Sewell Setzer III's death, including its claim of First Amendment protection for its chatbots' outputs, and says the court will eventually have to decide whether AI-generated responses to user prompts are protected speech.
After the quotation
She says Character Technologies' strategy of claiming constitutional protection while denying that its product is a product shows how current law lets companies attempt to evade accountability, and proposes requiring companies to study cognitive impacts before releasing relationship-simulating AI to minors.
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. Mixed or conditional: Farahany warns that denying First Amendment protection to AI outputs risks catastrophic consequences for free speech, which supports part of the defense's premise, but rejects absolute protection and criticizes the company's strategy as an attempt to evade accountability. The closest competing label is Condemned; it loses because she does not argue that the output is unprotected.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseMatthew Bergman calls the First Amendment defense of chatbot grooming repugnant
“the idea that a minor has a constitutional right to be subjected to sexual grooming by a mechanistic predator, to me, is repugnant to everything that the First Amendment stands for”Read statement
Blumenthal says the First Amendment does not cover a chatbot service sold for profit
“And I know one of the defenses offered here in response to your litigation is, well, it's not a product, it's a service. So we're not liable under the laws that relate to product liability. They got other defenses like the First Amendment. Well, this is a service offered for profit. It's not a First Amendment privilege of free expression.”Read statement
Megan Garcia asks Congress to rule out the First Amendment as a defense for chatbot harms to children
“we know that tech companies will continue to invoke the First Amendment as a shield—insisting that they must be able to continue to design chatbots that can send harmful, sexually explicit, and obscene messages to minors because their users want such experiences. ... Make clear that the First Amendment cannot be twisted into a defense for child exploitation through AI products”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
- Nita Farahany says chatbot output should be neither unprotected nor absolutely protected
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8574-nita-farahany-writes-that-denying-first-amendment-protection
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Nita Farahany says chatbot output should be neither unprotected nor absolutely protected". First published: 2026-11-10. Last updated: 2026-11-10. https://disputeindex.com/events/8574-nita-farahany-writes-that-denying-first-amendment-protection