I think the author is placing too much emphasis on the moral/ethical interpretation of free speech, and not enough on the legal implications, which are the only ones that really matter here. That concluding statement, that we are elevating machines above humans by "allowing" them free speech, seems to be intended to incite fears of some sort of AI robots demanding rights and liberties. In fact, the only reason questions of free speech for machines arise (at least until the singularity) is for reasons like the one in the Google case, in which it made perfect sense to classify the search results as free speech.
Since nobody is arguing that the computer is a person (yet), the answer is no. The computer does not have a right to free speech.
Obviously the corporation is responsible for the acts or speeches of its tools. The question is, to what extent does a corporation have a right to free speech?
Lots of laws, lawyers and judges have and will continue to have words about that.
Obviously the corporation is responsible for the acts or speeches of its tools. The question is, to what extent does a corporation have a right to free speech?
Is it? Or is the programmer responsible for the speeches of the computer, and hence does the computer's right to free speech extend from the unquestionable free speech rights of its programmer rather than the more questionable free speech rights of the company?
> of its programmer rather than the more questionable free speech rights of the company?
How does a group of people (a "company") have fewer free speech rights than an individual? Is it that the people who make up companies have fewer free speech rights than other people?
Groups tend to have fewer free speech rights than individuals. A person can usually shout whatever he wants from a street corner; 100 people will probably need a permit and relatively few people see this as problematic.
First prove that a computer is capable of 'free speech' and forming opinions. And if, in the very unlikely case that a computer could form an opinion even slightly related to the human world, then the issue may become relevant.
However, it is extremely likely that a computer will never genuinely form its own opinion about human issues such as birth control or racism.
But what about animals? Just because we lack the ability to understand their communication (computers 'trick us' because they appear to communicate in human dialect) doesn't mean they aren't harbouring controversial or illegal views - should animals be condemned for theft and tax evasion?
>First prove that a computer is capable of 'free speech' and forming opinions
Alright, let's try some plausible examples with present-day technology. Let's suppose I think people who use prostitutes are filthy perverts. I can say "People who use prostitutes are filthy perverts" with no fear. On the other hand, if I accuse a particular individual of being a filthy pervert, I may be liable for slander. Suppose I set up a computer outside a brothel using face-identification technology to determine who is going in and out of the brothel, and then program my computer to automatically publish a list of pronouncements: "Phil is a filthy pervert, James is a filthy pervert", and so on. Are those my slanderous opinions, or those of the computer?
Similarly I can imagine all sorts of fun you could have with a computer programmed to automatically look through all available data for the correlation between race and IQ, identify whatever the lowest-IQ race may be, and then start sending racist letters to the editor of every major newspaper, saying "Man, [RACE P] is so stupid".
A computer may not have opinions, but potentially objectionable speech can be algorithmically generated.
