Nita Farahany
Role at the time: Law and philosophy professor at Duke University, in an essay for the Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara newsletter
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.
“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.”
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. 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.