Профиль

You don't need to love AI to see the danger in letting the government decide what you're allowed to read and which ideas you can share. We can both address real harms from AI and protect users' rights in the process. cdt.org/insights/who...

This isn't to say that AI gets a regulatory pass. Governing what these systems do is urgent and necessary—for our civil rights, our privacy, and more. But when lawmakers target chatbot outputs based on the viewpoints they express, the First Amendment has something to say.

Whether/how the First Amendment protects AI output isn't a theoretical question. FTC just floated treating 'ideological' tuning as consumer fraud. A federal order is pushing AI 'neutrality.' State AGs are probing chatbot 'bias' on political issues. This isn't going away. www.ftc.gov/policy/publi...

When developers shape chatbot outputs, they're making editorial judgments of the sort courts have consistently protected. But even setting that argument aside, there's an independent basis: your right to share and receive information. Coming or going, the First Amendment protects info via chatbot.

New from @cdt.org: "Whose Speech Is It Anyway? The Constitutional Contours of Chatbot Regulation" on the question suddenly at the center of AI policy: can the gov’t control what a chatbot is allowed to say? Long story short: machines don't have 1A rights, but you and I do.🧵 cdt.org/insights/who...

This isn’t just a First Amendment problem for researchers. When the government controls which conclusions are acceptable, all of us inherit a weaker body of knowledge. Full comments here cdt.org/wp-content/u...

Yesterday @cdt.org filed comments opposing the proposal. Among the red flags: grants terminable at the President's whim, and entire fields at risk of defunding — including research on LGBTQ+ people and anything the gov’t labels “anti-American.”

Who decides which research questions are worth being asked? Under OMB’s proposed overhaul of federal grant rules, the answer would be political officials — not scientists, not peer reviewers, and not the merit-based system that has powered American research for decades. 🧵 cdt.org/insights/cdt...

All I am saying is try to live your life so you never have to make those nice young men on Pod Save America look visibly miserable trying to rehabilitate you

Pitched as protection against deepfakes, the NO FAKES Act would actually create a heckler's veto, and the people best placed to use it would be powerful figures who least like being mocked. Today, @cdt.org led a coalition urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to stop it. cdt.org/insights/cdt...

And the new likeness right it would create runs up to 70 years after death. Pope Francis passed in 2025, so who could demand this image come down? An Argentine grandnephew? The Vatican? Who knows — but it wouldn't be the man in the coat, who by all accounts may have loved it.

There's a parody exception in the bill, but it's a defense you raise *after* the post is already gone. Platforms facing steep penalties for guessing wrong will just take content down first. The joke disappears while the lawyers sort it out.

The NO FAKES Act would create a takedown mechanism for any "highly realistic" AI image of a real person — deceptive or not, harmful or not. Balenciaga Pope is highly realistic. It depicts a real person. That's all the bill requires.

Remember Balenciaga Pope? A perfectly serene pontiff, an impossibly puffy coat. A low-stakes, harmless joy of the internet. The NO FAKES Act would put a target on Balenciaga Pope and everything like it. Here's how: 🧵 www.gq.com/story/pope-p...

Today, the Center for Democracy & Technology joined FIRE, ACLU, Knight First Amendment Institute, Public Knowledge, and others in endorsing the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression, or JAWBONE Act.

CDT is grateful to have some of our resources on Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) reporting processes cited & valued by our partner, Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, in their latest white paper on survivor-centered reporting systems & policies. More from their resource: asml.cyber.harvard.e...

Every filing lands on the same point: the government doesn't get to mark a class of people with a warning label. Pride exists because that kind of erasure has always been worth fighting. LGBTQ+ people belong on screen, and everywhere else.

And the breadth of opposition: a 44-org coalition including @hrc.org, @glaad.bsky.social, and others correctly called it a solution in search of a problem. Parents already have the tools. The government has no basis to flag a whole class of people as dangerous. assets.glaad.org/asset/a4b873...

On the law: @lgbttech.bsky.social, @publicknowledge.bsky.social & partners show the FCC has no authority to do this, and that singling out a class of people as "meriting a warning" is both stigmatizing and unconstitutional. www.lgbttech.org/post/lgbt-te...

Start with Belle Torek's filing. Her point cuts to the core of the proposal: ratings systems are normative, so making LGBTQ+ identity a warning category signals government disfavor and chills protected speech. www.linkedin.com/posts/bellet...