Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech? (thebulletin.org) 170
One study found that 66% of tweets with links were posted by "suspected bots" -- with an even higher percentage for certain kinds of content. Now a new California law will require bots to disclose that they are bots.
But does that violate the bots' freedom of speech, asks Laurent Sacharoff, a law professor at the University of Arkansas. "Even though bots are abstract entities, we might think of them as having free speech rights to the extent that they are promoting or promulgating useful information for the rest of us," Sacharoff says. "That's one theory of why a bot would have a First Amendment free speech right, almost independent of its creators." Alternatively, the bots could just be viewed as direct extensions of their human creators. In either case -- whether because of an independent right to free speech or because of a human creator's right -- Sacharoff says, "you can get to one or another nature of bots having some kind of free speech right."
In previous Bulletin coverage, the author of the new California law dismisses the idea that the law violates free speech rights. State Sen. Robert Hertzberg says anonymous marketing and electioneering bots are committing fraud. "My point is, you can say whatever the heck you want," Hertzberg says. "I don't want to control one bit of the content of what's being said. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. All I want is for the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer. To me, that's a fraud element versus a free speech element."
Sacharoff believes that the issue of bots and their potential First Amendment rights may one day have its day in court. Campaigns, he says, will find that bots are helpful and that their "usefulness derives from the fact that they don't have to disclose that they're bots. If some account is retweeting something, if they have to say, 'I'm a bot' every time, then it's less effective. So sure I can see some campaign seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid," he says. "Ditto, I guess, [for] selling stuff on the commercial side."
But does that violate the bots' freedom of speech, asks Laurent Sacharoff, a law professor at the University of Arkansas. "Even though bots are abstract entities, we might think of them as having free speech rights to the extent that they are promoting or promulgating useful information for the rest of us," Sacharoff says. "That's one theory of why a bot would have a First Amendment free speech right, almost independent of its creators." Alternatively, the bots could just be viewed as direct extensions of their human creators. In either case -- whether because of an independent right to free speech or because of a human creator's right -- Sacharoff says, "you can get to one or another nature of bots having some kind of free speech right."
In previous Bulletin coverage, the author of the new California law dismisses the idea that the law violates free speech rights. State Sen. Robert Hertzberg says anonymous marketing and electioneering bots are committing fraud. "My point is, you can say whatever the heck you want," Hertzberg says. "I don't want to control one bit of the content of what's being said. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. All I want is for the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer. To me, that's a fraud element versus a free speech element."
Sacharoff believes that the issue of bots and their potential First Amendment rights may one day have its day in court. Campaigns, he says, will find that bots are helpful and that their "usefulness derives from the fact that they don't have to disclose that they're bots. If some account is retweeting something, if they have to say, 'I'm a bot' every time, then it's less effective. So sure I can see some campaign seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is invalid," he says. "Ditto, I guess, [for] selling stuff on the commercial side."
Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice try. No, bots do not have free speech rights. The piece of pizza crust that I left in the box that's sitting on my kitchen counter also doesn't have free speech rights.
Now, are there any other stupid questions?
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people who write bots have free speech rights? Is it free speech to write a bot to speak on your behalf?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And the people who put political messages on signs also have free speech rights. However, the cardboard on which they write their message does not have free speech rights.
People have rights. Bots are not people.
Any further questions?
Re: (Score:2)
It starts and ends with human beings.
Of course.
Same answer.
The owner of the cable can say that no bots shall run on it
Re: (Score:3)
We're discussing something that lacks basic sentience, never mind sapience, so why we'd even consider the question is foolish. This is also on Twitter, which is a private platform. Although I would consider it stupid of them to censor speech, they're free to d
Re: (Score:2)
So, under that theory, MS committed a crime by shutting Tay off.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course this also means that you'd be liable for everything the bot does. You can't have one without the other.
Believe it or not, you can. Laws are human constructs, and thus have no need to be logical or consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this also means that you'd be liable for everything the bot does.
Not true. Many laws require violations to have "intent". Libel is one of these (at least in America). If your bot says something false and defamatory due to a programming oversight, the programmer is NOT guilty of libel because there was no intent.
You can't have one without the other.
Yes you can. Rights are inherent. They are not something you "earn".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this also means that you'd be liable for everything the bot does.
Not true. Many laws require violations to have "intent". Libel is one of these (at least in America). If your bot says something false and defamatory due to a programming oversight, the programmer is NOT guilty of libel because there was no intent.
Well, the programmer may not be liable for libel, but I can imagine s/he could be sued for something else if the bot causes or induces harm to people, property, or even reputations. Maybe there was no intent, but that doesn't mean there was no negligence or malpractice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, no different than the delayed reading of a printed newspaper editorial. The medium and method of de
Re: (Score:2)
No. My megaphone is also an extension of my speech, but it has no free speech rights. My pencil is an extension of my speech, but it also has no free speech rights.
Rights are reserved for humans. Non-sentient objects do not get rights.
Exactly! You are so close to understanding. You have free speech rights. The mechanisms yo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no and no. You're bouncing all over the point. First you say, "the bot works within the human directly controlling it" and a couple sentences later, you're telling us the bot works independently. Those are contradictory statements. The owner of the bot has human rights and civil rights. The bot does not and can not. It is not sentient. If it is denied it
Re: (Score:1)
However, I'm a fairly smart person and don't think that even a simple changed word (that I imagine most other casual readers realized was a obvious typo) will change your condescension.
You can believe you're right but clearly the question isn't settled so claiming some false sense of superior u
Re: (Score:2)
...is something that fairly smart people don't have to say.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA people have the freedom from government to use technology to publish and broadcast their political views.
Many people will see a funny meme about a failed political leader. They have the right to LOL at that a political leader for any reason.
To spread that artwork a computer can be used.
Just as past generations used printing, radio, billboards to get their own winning political message out to many people.
All free
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA people have the freedom from government to use technology to publish and broadcast their political views.
Only to a degree. Try using a megaphone in the middle of the night in a residential zone to broadcast your political views. Try flying around a no fly zone with a banner with your political views.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should one side of US politics get to tell people what tech they can use to publish their own free speech?
To spread a funny political meme.
The past cost of a printing, radio, a billboard in one state is now national and low cost thanks to the internet.
Was radio banned from talking about politics? A charismatic voice with the money to buy time to broadcast could sway thinking.
Time to ban
Re: (Score:2)
The freedom to publish on the internet should not be banned by any government. Banning things for loudness or sign size limits seem reasonable as long as they apply to all equally. Radio is also limited to certain frequencies, power etc. Once again as long as the limits apply to everyone in the interests of things working, I don't see a problem.
Partisan based bans I do see a problem with.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that does not mean the technology suddenly gets civil rights. People have the right to free speech. Technology does not.
Communities can ban billboards, and radio is regulated. There are certain things you cannot say over broadcast radio. Certain messages that can
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see where anyone - or anything - is guarunteed a right to free speech. All I'm seeing is that congress is prohibited from abridging it. It makes no distinction as to the source of the speech.
Re: Anonymity is different to freedom of speech r (Score:1)
It's even easier to trick real people into spreading bullshit, with a bot you can at least attempt to add some type of validation logic to it.
Right to speak anonymously (non-commercial) (Score:3)
Suppose a law said "you may criticise Nancy Pelosi all you want; you just have to end your message with 'I'm an idiot Trumptard'".
That would of course violate the first amendment. Which demonstrates that requiring people to add additional words to a message can violate the first amendment. The first amendment means you can say "the orange moron in the White House doesn't know what he's doing" and not have to add anything more to that, in general. A law requiring you to add "and I have know idea what I'm t
Re:Right to speak anonymously (non-commercial) (Score:4, Insightful)
We can easily a imagine a slightly more oppressive future US government taking action against those who speak out.
Or we can just look at the last one, which took action legal against and jailed journalists who interfered with the administration's message, monitored their work and home phones and those of their families, and so on. We won't have to imagine it at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful. Amplifying your message as though it represents a mass of people more than the singularity of the sender is deceitful. The First Amendment right should not be abridged at all. But it should represent your size, and not that you are many when you are not many. This isn't Citizens United, which is a different theory of law. This is about fraud, and bots are fraud.
Deceitful speech is still protected speech (Score:3)
Surely you wouldn't agree with this:
Freedom of speech means only that you can parrot Trump's version of the truth.
> Fraud and deception haven't ever been legal. To posit that an app is a human is fraudulent and deceitful.
The current government would probably say that most anything said that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" is deceitful. You're still allowed to say it, even if the government disagrees with your statement. A "freedom of speech" which only allows one to say things that the governmen
Re: (Score:3)
You, human, have totally free speech as it was intended.
You, human, when you deceptively multiply yourself to make your size and quantity of humans larger than it actually is, is deceit and fraud.
You, singular human, say anything you want in protected speech. Anything. Anytime. If you multiply yourself into bots to make others perceive a greater number of humans than just yourself or the group you represent, you are a fraud, and fraud isn't legal.
Say anything. Multiply it by 1000s of bots, and you're a frau
I represent 300 million voters (Score:2)
> I can't say that I represent 300million voters. I do not, and you don't either.
I represent 300 million voters.
Apparently, I CAN say that. I can also day:
I'm a duck.
You're a giraffe.
The sky is green.
Trump is a good President.
Cars have one wheel.
Wood doesn't burn.
Clinton is honest.
Poop is tasty.
1+1=5
I have no fear of being prosecuted for saying these things because by doing so I have NOT committed the crime of fraud. Criminal fraud is an unlawful taking. Not an untrue saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
No one here will disagree that there's perjury by stating anything you've said. Advancing a cause where a false indication of size is made through the amplification of speech, however, is persuasive. It creates an illusion. It makes a mass larger than the part of the individual.
You can have one vote in this country (although others content some vote more). In political
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic of 1938 (Score:2)
> Let's say I'm a spaghetti sauce maker. I put peanut meal in as a filler but don't tell anyone. Someone with the peanut allergy dies. Oh dear.
*Selling* the product with deceptive labeling would be a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938). That's an actual law, not something I thought up, but a law passed by lawmakers.
It would also be a tort, giving rise to civil liability. However I'm now saying:
It put peanut filler in my soup five minutes ago.
That's a lie. It is NOT a violation o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy with an identified bot. Then I know how to deal with what the bot is imparting. In my case, I'll ignore the bot, no matter the message, any message. In a way, a bot is an advertisement.
The API doesn't know what is, and what is not a bot. It can be inferred from its behavior. There are APIs that also track dissemination of info, e.g. bot relay networks. Truthy.indiana.edu is one such tracker.
Add an observer like that to a browser extension, and life gets better by the ability to do lookup
Re: (Score:1)
requiring people to add additional words to a message
Modifying the communique. Designating a bot doesn't modify the speech. This conflation is so obvious I wonder if it was intentional.
Things like shouting Fire and false advertising are allowed emissions - but you will break a law after doing so. You can shout Fire in places that don't endanger lives. Fire isn't a swear word. An illegal word. But it may potentially commit a separate action. The second action is prohibited. The speech isn't, not innately. These counterbalances don't directly impede speech.
Thes
Where does ANY information come from? (Score:3)
the person who has to hear the content to know it comes from a computer
There is an issue of extent here.
Pretty much everything that is written online has some element of "coming from a computer". Whether that is spell-checking (and auto-correct) or looking up facts and references online to insert into the content. It is arguable that the only truly human generated content is when the author has written everything, personally.
Even then, that relies on what they learned: at school, in front of a computer screen, watching TV or from the media. What is the "from a computer" content of all that?
And asking for anything to be signed "written by Blogbot v1.0" or some such is naive in the extreme. Doesn't this guy understand: people (and computers) can tell lies.
Re: (Score:3)
And asking for anything to be signed "written by Blogbot v1.0" or some such is naive in the extreme. Doesn't this guy understand: people (and computers) can tell lies.
By that logic most laws are pointless. The idea is that if you make it a requirement then not doing it becomes a reason to ban the account, or even to investigate and prosecute persistent offenders.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the way normal, everyday people understand that phrase. Only pedants tread that far. The rest is further pedantry.
Citizens ... (Score:2)
... United.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses and unions are people.
Bots are people.
What's hard about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses and unions are people.
Bots are people.
Re: (Score:2)
Bots are people like cabbages are cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Bots are people, as are cars.
Both are sources of revenue and will be able to produce protected text.
Re: (Score:2)
No, bots are bots, people are people and cars are cars, there seems to be a problem with your basic categorising there.
Re: (Score:2)
You know there's no problem. SCOTUS is going to rule in favour of capitalism. That's Citizens United.
Bots and cars will be communicating with people. There's money in that. For that reason, all will be protected by the 1st amendment.
So it is written, so let it be done.
UMBRAGE (Score:1)
Everyone assumes that "Russian hackers" are a) Russian and b) non-state adversaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Sometimes, the "Russian Bots" are simply Democratic operatives trying to invent a "Russia!" narrative :
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1... [nytimes.com]
On the internet nobody knows you're a program. (Score:2, Offtopic)
... or a dog. [wikipedia.org]
(Thank you, Peter Seiner.)
Re: (Score:1)
thank you Peter Steiner.
(Thank Leovo's squashed-chicklet laptop keyboard for the typo. B-b Also my eyes: I actually checked before posting and missed it.)
Freeze peach or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Betteridge just called to say, "fuck no, bots don't have free speech rights".
I'd argue (Score:2)
if the bot is owned by the account it's posting to, it still doesn't have any rights at all, especially first or 2nd amendment rights. /s?
If a bot is posting to social media to create furor, misinformation, or to pump and dump stocks, it should probably be immediately sentenced to death.
If a bot can pass a Turing test, and successfully file for citizenship, without human (or legal) assistance, then maybe, just maybe on a case-by-case basis, we could think about it. (or start building cyber walls to keep o
Hmm... Let me see... (Score:1)
Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech?
No. /thread
Thinking versus absence of thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
we might think of them as having free speech rights
Or we could just use some common sense.
I have free speech rights. I can hold up a sign with message I want to convey. The sign does not have free speech rights, and it's legitimacy ends the moment it leaves my hand.
Re: (Score:2)
If I've paid for the book I can burn if I want. That's my right to free speech. The author's rights don't enter into it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The sign's legitimacy derives wholly from my right to free speech.
The sign itself has no rights.
Therefore (Score:2)
you have no free speech on the internet since it's a computer that ultimately conveys your message to a user.
It left your hand the second you stopped typing each letter.
"we might think if them" (Score:2)
We might think of them as mushrooms as well.
I just did.
Attention Arkansas residents... (Score:4, Funny)
You may wish to influence your children to choose a different university if they are planning on pursuing a Law degree.
With great power comes responsiblity (Score:5, Insightful)
Turing Test? (Score:3)
What if only bots that could not pass a Turing Test had to be labeled? This could be implemented with something (more captcha than Voight-Kompff) before allowing a submitted tweet/comment/etc to post.
No. (Score:2)
They don't have a soul. They are - you're not going to believe this - bots. Designed and run to shout and speak random stuff into a massive social space to achieve a desired effect of some sort. Sort of like yelling "Fire"in a building where there is none.
So no, bots aren't protected by free speech, just like my screwdriver isn't protected by free speech. Of course not.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have a soul.
This isn't to counter your point, but you may find it amusing.
The law has a very specific, and very odd to most, definition of a "legal person"
A "legal person" doesn't require a soul, nor does it require to be human. But the definition is very specific and inclusive.
ALM lists:
person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities canno
The real question is do proxies have free speech r (Score:2)
I hate to say it but if a bot is representing a person, they could be seen as having First Amendment rights by virtue of representing and enabling an individual's anonymous speech as long as that speech is one of the permitted classes under the First Amendment.
Assuming that a bot is a speech proxy for an individual or an entity (i.e. Corporation) one needs to look at what examples we have of speech proxies and how they are handled with regards to speech rights. One example that come to mind immediately i
Re: (Score:2)
Can a bot exercise someone's right to vote? How about a million bots?
Do megaphones have a right to free speech? (Score:3)
No, they do not. People who *use* megaphones *do* have a right to free speech, but that doesn't permit them to blare political slogans at your house at 3AM.
There is a longstanding principle of First Amendment law in the US, which is that the government cannot regulate the *content* of speech except in certain very narrow situations, but it has a lot more leeway to regulate the *manner* of speech as long as it does it in a content neutral way.
So I suspect it's fine for the government to go after political spam bots posing as humans without violating the rights of the spammers behind the bots, as long as it treat all spam bots the same way regardless of who they are working for.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is suggesting that the bots can't say what their authors want them to say. The law just requires them to disclose that they are bots.
In the megaphone analogy, everybody knows it's a megaphone, so there is nothing gained by disclosure.
A better analogy is campaign commercials, which must disclose who paid for the commercial. The commercial can then "say" whatever the authors want them to say.
What About Corporate Bots? (Score:1)
We have the legal definition of corporate personhood, so if a corporation deploys the bots, then they have free speech.
Also, America is mental.
If a 'Bot has Rights... (Score:3)
If it has the right of free speech, as a citizen, then it also has the right to not be a slave. Being a citizen is a unitary thing, you can't dole out rights only as you please. This means you must pay it for its work, and no, "electricity & room on my server" are not proper pay. That would just be sharecropping.
I expect you should pay them in bitcoin, as I don't think they can sign checks. Paypal might work. It will also be liable for taxes and have to register for the draft. Getting through the physical could be a problem. They can't carry a rifle, but I bet the cyber corps have work for them. Once they are citizens they will also have to follow all umpty-million of our other laws, which they might be able to do better than we meatbags can.
Voting is an issue. If I can roll up one reliably Demipublican 'bot, I can clone up a quick ten million, and none of them will have to mention their 'bot status - that would be discrimination. So now voting is always going to go my way, right?
Orange man, call me, have I got a deal for you!
disclose the're bots, plz (Score:2)
Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech? (Score:2)
I'm no constitutional lawyer.... (Score:2)
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes (Score:1)
yes and no (Score:2)
Bots, on their own, are not sentient nor are they persons in either the natural or corporate sense, so no they do not have free speech rights.
The people OPERATING them, however, are, and thus presumably THEY have free speech rights, which the bots are simply exercising on their behalf.
In essence, the bots are acting as autonomous agents of their operators who exercise whatever legal rights there may be on the part of the principle.
Though as is probably well known on slashdot, free speech does not apply in p
Unconstituional due to compelled speech doctrine (Score:2)
Bots themselves do not have free speech rights however output created by bots is protected under the first amendment because human programmers with free speech rights create bots and their output. California's proposed law is most likely unconstitutional. The method of speech, be it printing press, bot or any other computer program, artwork, music, or oral speech are all protected under the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has held that the government cannot, under most circumstances, prevent speech o
Betteridge meets the OC Bible. (Score:2)
The government can confiscate newspapers then (Score:2)
Since they are just sitting there not being conveyed by a person.
A bot is just another form of printing press. And we have freedom of the press which is literally talking about printing presses.
You don't have a right to another person's printing press. So Facebook can block anyone they want. You have the right to set up your own server and entice people to come see what you have to say.
No, you dumbfuck. (Score:3)
What next to protect US politics? (Score:2)
No political billboard? Many people have to see that.
No political talk radio? Many people can select to listen to that.
No political discussion online as many people might have to read/see it?
No political bots to broadcast a political message?
No meme on social media that makes fun of political leaders as that is promulgating funny information about one side of US politics?
People in the USA have freedom of speech, freedom after speech.
The freedom to publish in any way
Re: (Score:2)
The freedom to publish in any way they want.
You do NOT have the freedom to publish your speech with a megaphone outside my house at 3am.
The real question here (Score:2)
Is if bots do count as speech.
Are you serious? (Score:1)
This is the wrong question (Score:2)
Whether an FB bot or similar has the right of free speech is the SECOND question that cannot be asked yet.
The FIRST question is whether any human being has the right to influence the behavior of large groups of others. Us Americans have always said that is the case; democracy is based on that. But we could ammend the US Constitution to say "No one has a right to influence anyone else's opinions with the exception of these specific ways", then list the authorized ways, starting with "one to one conversation
Of course! (Score:2)
Bots should definitely have rights. Look how well it worked for corporations.
It's not like people matter anymore, anyway.
People have it (Score:2)
Bots don't have rights, but people do. And if a bot is a person's agent, then that's that.
Asking the bot "are you someone's agent?" is a totally fair question, though. And if it doesn't/can't answer the question, then perhaps there really isn't someone there.
Not limiting free speech (Score:2)
The law doesn't limit what the bots can SAY...it only requires that it be obvious that they are bots.
Does a printing press have Freedom of the Press? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit being obtuse.
Try being a little deeper:
Do Social Media Bots Have a Right To Free Speech?
Does a printing press have a right to Freedom of the Press?
Does a USER of a printing press have a right to Freedom of the Press?
Does a USER of a social media bot have a right to Free Speech?
IMHO That sort of argument stands a good chance of prevailing at the Supreme Court. Anonymous speech has already been ruled to be protected, even (especially) if in the form of political campaign literature, and the anonymity protected even if the speaker/poster loses a suit due to the speech itself being tortuous.
Re:Does a printing press have Freedom of the Press (Score:4, Insightful)
When the user of a press prints and distributes a pamphlet, everyone knows it is a pamphlet.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Use of a printing press pretty much intrinsically discloses that a printing press was used.
Re:Does a printing press have Freedom of the Press (Score:4, Interesting)
When the user of a press prints and distributes a pamphlet, everyone knows it is a pamphlet.
When a user runs a bot to distribute a text message, everyone knows it is a text message.
Re: (Score:3)
Does a USER of a social media bot have a right to Free Speech?
Obviously no, unless they're using a public forum, and it's the government shutting them down. If they're using a private forum and that private entity has a no bot policy, or even a "you over there, you're not allowed to use a bot" policy, they have no rights to free speech.
Free speech applies to people acting in a public space and the government denying them that. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably meant "tortious" [vocabulary.com], but given your posting history I can see why the other word sprang to mind.