Pushing to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that its chatbots caused a teen's suicide, Character Technologies is arguing that chatbot outputs should be considered "pure speech" deserving of the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment.

In their motion to dismiss, the developers of Character.AI (C.AI) argued that it doesn't matter who the speaker is—whether it's a video game character spouting scripted dialogue, a foreign propagandist circulating misinformation, or a chatbot churning out AI-generated responses to prompting—courts protect listeners' rights to access that speech. Accusing the mother of the departed teen, Megan Garcia, of attempting to "insert this Court into the conversations of millions of C.AI users" and supposedly endeavoring to "shut down" C.AI, the chatbot maker argued that the First Amendment bars all of her claims.

"The Court need not wrestle with the novel questions of who should be deemed the speaker of the allegedly harmful content here and whether that speaker has First Amendment rights," Character Technologies argued, "because the First Amendment protects the public’s 'right to receive information and ideas.'"

Read full article

Comments

© Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

A Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission plans what she calls a First Amendment tour to fight the Trump administration's "ongoing campaign of censorship and control."

"Since the founding of our country, the First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and hold power to account. Today, the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government," Commissioner Anna Gomez said yesterday.

Gomez plans to focus on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's actions against news broadcasters and tech firms. Under Carr, "the FCC is being weaponized to attack freedom of speech in the media and telecommunications sector instead of focusing on its core mission—connecting the public, protecting consumers, and supporting competition," Gomez's announcement said.

Read full article

Comments

© FCC

On Monday, Harvard University filed a lawsuit that it hopes will end the federal government's hold on over $2 billion of research funds destined for the university's faculty. The suit claims that the government's demands for input on Harvard's hiring and admissions violate the university's First Amendment rights, and that the funding freeze hasn't followed the procedures laid out in federal law.

Earlier in April, the government sent a letter to Harvard demanding various changes, from altering university governance to enforcing a completely undefined "viewpoint diversity" on hiring and admissions. Failing to agree, the government suggested, would place the financial relationship between the government and Harvard at risk. Harvard responded with a strongly worded refusal and, by the end of the day, saw the government put over $2 billion in research funding on hold. Harvard was not told how long the hold would last or what exactly was needed to lift it.

The lawsuit seeks to reverse the hold. Harvard argues that there are two reasons the court should restore the flow of research money.

Read full article

Comments

© A P Cortizas, Jr.

DataBreaches.net declined to comply, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

Trump says he wants the U.S. to have a "50% ownership position" in TikTok.

TikTok has lost its Supreme Court appeal in a 9–0 decision and will likely shut down on January 19, a day before Donald Trump's inauguration, unless the app can be sold before the deadline, which TikTok has said is impossible.

During the trial last Friday, TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco warned SCOTUS that upholding the Biden administration's divest-or-sell law would likely cause TikTok to “go dark—essentially the platform shuts down" and "essentially... stop operating." On Wednesday, TikTok reportedly began preparing to shut down the app for all US users, anticipating the loss.

But TikTok's claims that the divest-or-sell law violated Americans' free speech rights did not supersede the government's compelling national security interest in blocking a foreign adversary like China from potentially using the app to spy on or influence Americans, SCOTUS ruled.

Read full article

Comments

© Kayla Bartkowski / Stringer | Getty Images News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments that could determine if a Texas age-gating law preventing kids from accessing pornography online is overly burdensome for adults. A ruling against Texas could put an end to allegedly invasive age-verification laws in nearly 20 states.

A decision isn't expected until summer 2025, so it's too soon to say which way the court is leaning.

The question before the court is whether the 5th Circuit was right to stay a preliminary injunction that had previously been blocking Texas from enforcing the law or whether that decision should be reversed and remanded based on the level of constitutional scrutiny that the 5th Circuit applied.

Read full article

Comments

© Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

It's getting harder to access popular adult sites in the US South.

On Wednesday, Pornhub's owner, Aylo, kicked off the new year by blocking two more states that implemented age verification laws requiring ID to access porn, Florida and South Carolina. According to 404 Media, these states are now among 16 states where Aylo sites, including Pornhub, RedTube, and YouPorn, cannot be accessed. Tennessee also risked being blocked, but a court preliminarily blocked its age-verification law from taking effect.

The other blocked states are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Mapping it out, 404 Media noted that the Aylo blackout spans nearly the entire US South, with Georgia's age verification law set to take effect in July and likely to trigger another block that would almost complete the blackout.

Read full article

Comments

© NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto

In the weeks before Donald Trump takes office, he has moved to delay a nationwide TikTok ban from taking effect until he has a chance to make a deal on his own terms that he believes could allow TikTok to continue operating in the US without posing a national security threat.

On Friday, Trump's lawyer filed a brief, urging the Supreme Court to stay enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act that would either ban TikTok on January 19 or force TikTok to sell the company to prevent China's alleged covert control of content on the app.

The Supreme Court had previously denied TikTok's request for an injunction that would have delayed enforcement until Trump takes office, instead planning to rush a decision on whether the Act violates the First Amendment before the deadline hits.

Read full article

Comments

© NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed it would review whether a federal law that could ban or force a sale of TikTok is unconstitutional.

The announcement came just one day after TikTok and its owner ByteDance petitioned SCOTUS for a temporary injunction to halt the ban until the high court could consider what TikTok claimed is "a massive and unprecedented speech restriction" ahead of a change in US presidential administrations.

“We’re pleased with today’s Supreme Court order," TikTok said in a statement. "We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights.”

Read full article

Comments

© STEFANI REYNOLDS / Contributor | AFP

TikTok has asked the Supreme Court to step in before it's forced to shut down the app in the US next month.

In a petition requesting a temporary injunction, TikTok prompted the Supreme Court to block the ban and grant a review that TikTok believes will result in a verdict that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is unconstitutional. And if the court cannot take up this review before TikTok's suggested January 6 deadline, the court should issue an administrative injunction delaying the ban until after Trump's inauguration, TikTok argued, appearing to seek any path to delay enforcement, even if only by a day.

According to TikTok, it makes no sense to force the app to shut down on January 19 if, the very next day or soon thereafter, Trump will take office and pause or otherwise intervene with enforcement.

Read full article

Comments

© NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto