Journal of Free Speech Law: My "Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output"
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
by Prof Jon M. Garon, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
by Prof. Nina Brown, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
"The material challenged in the plaintiff's complaint cannot be understood by a reasonable person as anything but substantially, if not literally, true."
An allegedly psychic "Internet sleuth" alleged a professor was involved in the University of Idaho student murders; the professor sued; then the "sleuth" countersued.
by Matthew L. Schafer & Tanvi Valsangikar, just published, through our normal blind review process.
Unlike calling Trump's stolen-election fantasy "the Big Lie," his lawyer's statements were demonstrably false assertions of fact.
Wright claims he's Satoshi Nakamoto, who's credited with inventing Bitcoin; defendant claimed otherwise.
alleging the accuser lied in the proceedings can thus go forward, holds the Connecticut Supreme Court.
(though false allegations about the details of the conduct may be).
Just published as part of the symposium on Media and Society After Technological Disruption, edited by Profs. Justin "Gus" Hurwitz & Kyle Langvardt.
"Every statement of fact in the summary [provided by ChatGPT] pertaining to [plaintiff] Walters is false."
violates the First Amendment, holds the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Plus: Should committed libertarians be opposed to pro-natalist policies?
Critics argue that excessively strict pleading standards prevent plaintiffs with meritorious defamation claims from obtaining the evidence they need to support them.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals splits 5-4 on the subject.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks