This guest post by BC Law Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Daniel Lyons first appeared in the AEIdeas Blog.

Last week, I explained why many generative AI outputs constitute speech that warrants First Amendment protection. This post explores the ramifications of that conclusion. Importantly, this protection does not mean chatbots are immune from liability. Courts, litigants, and regulators still have meaningful tools to address the consequences of generative AI activity. The key question is not whether AI speech can be regulated, but what the regulation seeks to do and what effect enforcement would have on speech interests.

This guest post by BC Law Professor and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs Daniel Lyons first appeared in the AEIdeas Blog.

The most important free speech question of the decade may not be about social media. It may be about chatbots. As generative AI reshapes how people communicate, courts and legislators must confront whether and how the First Amendment protects AI outputs. Last year, the first court to face this question punted, explaining at the motion to dismiss stage that it was “not prepared” yet to hold that a large language model’s output is speech. That case settled without a definitive answer. But the question won’t stay dormant, and First Amendment principles compel a clear conclusion: many chatbot outputs are protected speech, which should shape how courts handle AI-related litigation.