��ݮ��ƵAPP����

The legislative season is in full swing, and ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� is already tackling a surge of speech-restrictive bills. We started with Washington’s , which would require AI-generated content to include a disclosure.  

FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman  in opposition to the bill. In his testimony, John emphasized what ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� has been saying for years, that the “government can no more compel an artist to disclose whether they created a painting from a human model as opposed to a mannequin than it can compel someone to disclose that they used artificial intelligence tools in creating an expressive work.” 

Artificial intelligence, like earlier technologies such as the printing press, the camera, and the internet, has the power to revolutionize communication. The First Amendment protects the use of all these mediums for expression and forbids government interference under most circumstances. Importantly, the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without fear of government retaliation but also the right not to speak. Government-mandated disclosures relating to speech, like those required under HB 1170, infringe on these protections and so are subject to heightened levels of First Amendment scrutiny. 

FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.

Of course, as John stated, “Developers and users can choose to disclose their use of AI voluntarily, but government-compelled speech, whether that speech is an opinion or fact or even just metadata . . . undermines everyone’s fundamental autonomy to control their own expression.”

In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes Washington state) reiterated this fundamental principle just last year in X Corp. v. Bonta when it blocked a California law requiring social media platforms to publish information about their content moderation practices. Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. acknowledged the government’s stated interest in transparency, but  that “even ‘undeniably admirable goals’ ‘must yield’ when they ‘collide with the . . . Constitution.’”

This principle is likely to put HB 1170 in significant legal jeopardy.

FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

News

Existing laws and First Amendment doctrine already address the vast majority of concerns that legislators are seeking to address.

Read More

Another major problem with the policy embodied by HB 1170 is that it would apply to all AI-generated media rather than targeting a specific problem, like unlawful deceptive uses of AI, such as defamation. John pointed out to lawmakers that “if the intent of the bill is to root out deceptive uses of AI, this bill would do the opposite” by fostering the false impression that all AI-generated media is deceptive. In reality, AI-generated media — like all media — can be used to share both truth and falsehood. 

Moreover, people using AI to commit actual fraud will likely find ways to avoid disclosing that AI was used, whether by removing evidence of AI use or using tools from states without disclosure requirements. As a result, this false content will appear more legitimate than it would in a world without the disclosures required by this bill because people will be more likely to believe that content lacking the mandated disclosure was not created with AI.

Rather than preemptively imposing blanket rules that will stifle free expression, lawmakers should instead assess whether existing legal frameworks sufficiently address the concerns they have with AI. 

FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.