Megan Garcia
Role at the time: Plaintiff in the lawsuit and mother of Sewell Setzer III, in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism
Response to this claim
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.
“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”
Why we used 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. Condemned: Garcia calls the First Amendment a shield that tech companies invoke so they can keep sending harmful messages to minors, and asks Congress to make clear it cannot be a defense for child exploitation through AI products. The closest competing label is Challenged characterization; it loses because she rejects the defense itself rather than how the messages are described.