United States: Everything Is Not Terminator: We Need The California Bot Bill, But We Need It To Be Better

Published in The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law November-December 2018

I am on record in a number of publications as interpreting the First Amendment literally when it comes to freedom of speech for artificial intelligence ("AI").1 The First Amendment does not refer to human beings or natural persons. The First Amendment states that the federal, state, and local governments "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."2 A recent bill in the California legislature, Senate Bill No. 1001 (the "Bot Bill"), is testing that, though, as it would make it unlawful for any person to use a bot—defined as "an automated online account on an online platform that is designed to mimic or behave like the account of a person"—to "communicate or interact with another person in California online," subject to certain provisions.3 In order to avoid unlawful use of a bot, the owner of the bot can disclose that the bot is, in fact, a bot.4

The constitutionality of the Bot Bill has been called into question by a number of groups, some of which believe, like me, that the First Amendment protects AI speech and autonomous speech from devices and programs. For example, in a letter dated May 21, 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") alleged that the Bot Bill would, among other things, unconstitutionally "unmask" the humans who program and create the bots.5 The EFF appears to question the legitimacy of any law that would restrain internet speech, although it recognizes the need to address "harmful and ill-intentioned bots, such as the Russian bots that interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections or spambots used for fraud or commercial gain."6 While I agree that there are some flaws in versions of the Bot Bill that could make it unconstitutional, I disagree with the notion that any bill that seeks to regulate bot speech on the internet is unconstitutional on its face because of its implications for the freedom of speech of the human programmers behind the bots. There are some specific revisions that would make the Bot Bill a constitutional bill, a better bill, and a bill that we need.7

Anonymous Speech Under the First Amendment

The exact standard used to review government efforts to limit anonymous speech varies depending on the context,8 but there is little doubt that the First Amendment was intended to protect anonymous speech. The Federalist Papers were written anonymously by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the importance of anonymity to free speech: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."9 As I have argued, the First Amendment protects all speech, from human and nonhuman speakers alike, so the right to anonymous speech extends to AI and bots.

The Bot Bill potentially runs afoul of the First Amendment's protection of anonymity by requiring that bots identify themselves as bots. If bots are subject to the First Amendment, this mandatory identification is akin to requiring natural person speakers to identify themselves. The most likely standards to be applied to the Bot Bill's prohibition of bot anonymity are intermediate scrutiny or exacting scrutiny. Courts use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing content-neutral laws, i.e., laws that govern the "time, place, and manner" of speech rather than the contents of that speech. Intermediate scrutiny uses a five-part test:

  1. Is the challenged law or regulation within the constitutional power of government?
  2. Does the law or regulation further an important or substantial governmental interest?
  3. Is the governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression?
  4. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to address the governmental interest?10
  5. Are there other ample open opportunities of communication?11

If the subject law does not satisfy these five questions, the court will find that the law violates the First Amendment.

When looking at laws that seek to regulate political speech, courts use exacting scrutiny, upholding the law in question only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.12 If the law is not narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest, the court will find that the law violates the First Amendment.

Does the Bot Bill Satisfy the Courts' First Amendment Standards?

When the EFF issued its letter, it was responding to the original version of the Bot Bill, which would have made it unlawful "for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with natural persons in California online, with the intention of misleading a natural person about its artificial identity."13 There was no language that would have distinguished between commercial bots, political bots, bots that are intended to be humorous, bots that are created by artists as part of an installation or project, etc.14 As a matter of First Amendment review, the fact that the original version of the Bot Bill broadly prohibited anonymity among bots, rather than try to distinguish between bots for particular purposes, likely would have caused the Bot Bill to fail a court challenge. It is doubtful that a court would find such a broad approach to be narrowly tailored as required in both intermediate scrutiny and exacting scrutiny.

However, since the EFF issued its letter, the California legislature has amended the Bot Bill. As currently drafted, it would be unlawful "for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online, with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purpose of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election."15 The new language moves the Bot Bill away from being a content-neutral law, as it now identifies the type of content it applies to; that appears to eliminate intermediate scrutiny in favor of exacting scrutiny. But the new language also makes the legislation more narrowly tailored.16

Does informing consumers (in the commercial context) and voters (in the political context) that the online party they are interacting with is a bot qualify as an overriding government interest? All signs point to yes. The Supreme Court has ruled that requiring that candidates or political action committees selfidentify themselves in political ads does not on its face violate the First Amendment, although the Court has noted that as-applied challenges are available if a group can show a "reasonable probability" that disclosing its contributors' names would "subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties."17 That type of disclosure can be justified by a government interest in providing the electorate with information about election-related spending sources.18

Disclosing bot status shares a similar government interest. As the 2016 presidential election and the subsequent federal investigations indicate, there is an overriding government interest in ensuring reliable and accurate elections by preventing foreign nations and bad actors from using bots to illicitly influence votes in an election. Requiring that bots that attempt to influence votes in an election identify themselves as bots is a narrowly tailored approach to addressing that government interest. As the Supreme Court has noted when upholding disclaimer and disclosure requirements in election advertising, "they 'impose no ceiling on campaign related activities . . .' or 'prevent anyone from speaking.'"19

The Bot Bill's Effect on Bot Anonymity Versus Human Anonymity

The EFF's objection regarding anonymity was not primarily concerned with the anonymity of bots; it was concerned with the human programmers' anonymity. With regard to commercial and political speech, this appears to be an irrelevant concern. Anything a human programmer might want a bot to say politically or commercially on an online platform, the human programmer can tweet or post him- or herself through an anonymous account or username. The Bot Bill does not attempt to limit those communications. While I agree that the EFF's concern that the Bot Bill's original language would limit how artists and other similar speakers use bots to experiment with the bot form itself, the current version of the bill carves those speakers out from its restrictions.

Improving the Bot Bill

The amended Bot Bill, however, removed key language that held online platforms—Twitter, Facebook, etc.—accountable for the bots operating on their systems. The proposed Section 17942 stated:

(a) An online platform shall enable users to identify and report bots that the user suspects of violating [the requirement that bots identify themselves].

(b) (1) After receiving notice of a bot pursuant to subdivision (a), an online platform shall expeditiously investigate and determine whether or not to disclose that the bot is not a natural person or remove the bot.

(2) An online platform's investigation and response shall be expeditious if it occurs within 72 hours of receipt of the notice.

(c) Upon request of the Attorney General, an online platform shall provide reports detailing notices received pursuant to subdivision (b) and actions taken in response.

It was a mistake to remove these provisions from the Bot Bill. Online platforms are the parties in the best position to remove identified bots and minimize their influence on human users, which is the ultimate goal of the legislation. Without requiring online platforms to have a stake in the successful enforcement of the Bot Bill, the California government will be left to its own devices and resources, which are already thinly spread. Removing all responsibility from online platforms significantly reduces the bill's chances to be successful.20

I can understand potential objections from online platforms. A 72-hour turnaround time to remove bots is tight, and the requirements of this section would likely result in the accounts of some real people being removed. However, the solution is not to remove the requirements; the solution is to revise the requirements. Seventy-two hours is not enough time? We can make it 96, 120, etc. Will too many people be removed from online platforms? We can change "remove" to "suspend," permitting any natural person whose account is suspended to contact the online platform and correct the issue.21

Informing people when they are talking to AI, autonomous systems, or bots has been identified by a number of people as an important element of adapting to a world with widespread AI.22

The Bot Bill represents a positive development in the regulation of AI for that reason. But to give the bill its best chance to result in the widespread self-identification of bots as bots, the legislation should put part of the cost of enforcing that requirement on the online platforms where bots have proliferated.

Footnotes

1 John Frank Weaver, "Applying the First Amendment to Artificial Intelligence," TerraLex Connections, July 2018, https://www.terralex.org/publication/pba5b85ea27; John Frank Weaver, "Why Robots Deserve Free Speech Rights," Slate, January 16, 2018, https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html.

2 U.S. Const. amend I. Although the text of the First Amendment refers only to Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment has been ruled to extend that requirement to the states and their political subdivisions.

3 Cal. SB 1001, §1. The current version, showing revisions to the original version submitted is available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1001.

4 Id.

5 Jamie Williams, "EFF Letter Opposing California Bot Disclosure Bill, SB 1001-First Amendment Concern," Electronic Frontier Foundation, May 21, 2018, https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-opposing-californiabot-disclosure-bill-sb-1001-first-amendment-concerns. EFF raises other concerns regarding the Bot Bill under the First Amendment, including compelling speech and censoring legitimate speech, that this article does not address, except as otherwise noted.

6 Id.

7 Please note that this article, for the most part, does not address Senate Bill 3127, the Bot Disclosure and Accountability Act of 2018 (the "Federal Bot Bill"), introduced by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, because California's Bot Bill has a greater chance of becoming law. Having said that, there are numerous similarities and areas of overlap between the two bills, and I speak to those as relevant in the notes.

8 Courts apply exacting scrutiny to laws that burden political speech, including laws that prevent anonymity. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). However, courts are willing to accept some regulations prohibiting anonymous commercial speech based on the need for consumer protection. See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (noting that commercial speech may be regulated to ensure that it is not false and misleading). EFF appears at least somewhat uncertain of the standard that would apply, contending that courts would apply at least intermediate scrutiny to the Bot Bill. Williams, supra note 5.

9 McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 357.

10 United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

11 Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).

12 McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 335.

13 Cal. SB 1001, §1. (Emphasis added.)

14 Section 4(b) of the Federal Bot Bill has similarly broad language, as it would order the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that would require "a social media provider to establish and implement policies and procedures to require" any user of its social media service "to publically disclose the use" of any bot.

15 Cal. SB 1001, §1. (Emphasis added).

16 In addition to the broad requirements imposed on social media providers in Section 4(b), Section 5 of the Federal Bot Bill imposes specific prohibitions on political actors. It prohibits candidates and political parties from using bots that are intended to impersonate or replicate human activity online to share public information. It also prohibits political committees, corporations, and labor organizers from using bots intended to impersonate or replicate human activity online to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or to send electioneering communications.

17 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 198 (2003).

18 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 315 (2010) (quoting McConnell, 540 U.S. at 198).

19 Id. (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976) and McConnell, 540 U.S. at 201).

20 This is a failing of the Federal Bot Bill as well. Although it requires that the Federal Trade Commission draft regulations that would require social media providers to implement policies banning unidentified bots, it does not require that those providers enforce their policies or do anything in particular to stop bots from impersonating real human beings.

21 The Federal Bot Bill seeks to address this concern by requiring that a social media provider create a suspension process and a process through which human users can demonstrate that their activity is in compliance with the terms of its bot policy.

22 See Ethically Aligned Design, v.2, IEEE, 159, available at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/ead_v2.pdf  ("If users are aware that they are interacting with an [autonomous system] in the first place, and know exactly what information is being transferred to it, they will be better suited to tailor their inputs. A government-approved labeling system . . . could be used for this purpose to improve the chances that users are aware when they are interacting with [an autonomous system].").

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions