Legal scholars contend that when the Supreme Court ruled to protect the religious from compelled speech, their rulings may have unwelcome consequences. The scholars write, “The range of ‘speakers’ protected by this expansive jurisprudence will include information technology companies that generate algorithms and artificial intelligence – speech producers with no conscience at all, much less the kind of sincere religious conviction that the Roberts Court has seen fit to protect against government regulation. As we demonstrate, the free expression principles the Court has developed for religious believers, when added to the Court’s expansive reading of free speech more generally, will make it exceedingly difficult to protect against the significant harms that these speech-producing technologies can cause – including to speakers and readers whom the Court might wish to enable regulators to protect.” (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, February 2024, by Rebecca Aviel, Margot E. Kaminski, Toni M. Massaro and Andrew Keane Woods)
Menu