Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a pervasive force across industries, affecting everything from data processing and decision-making to creative arts and public discourse. As AI systems grow more sophisticated and autonomous, questions about their role in society have shifted from the technical to the philosophical and legal. One of the core issues at stake is the idea of whether AI systems have—or should have—freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

While some might argue that AI’s capacity to create and communicate should grant it similar protections to humans, the legal reality is starkly different. The U.S. legal system consistently reaffirms that rights like freedom of speech are inherently human, grounded in the understanding that personhood is essential to such protections. This principle is upheld in First Amendment jurisprudence, as well as in intellectual property law, where the creative and inventive works that qualify for protection require human authorship or inventorship. This article delves into why freedom of speech does not extend to AI and how this position is reinforced across legal precedents.

Freedom of Speech and the Requirement of Personhood

Freedom of speech, as enshrined in the First Amendment, is a right given to “persons”—whether individual citizens or groups of people, such as corporations, associations, or political parties. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) extended freedom of speech protections to corporations, under the rationale that corporations are associations of individuals with a collective voice. While this ruling sparked significant debate, it underscored a crucial legal principle: freedom of speech, even when extended to entities, is still fundamentally tied to human agency and intention.

AI, however, does not qualify as a “person” or even a “group of people.” It is not an association of humans but a system created and operated by humans to perform tasks autonomously. Unlike corporations, which are legal entities representing human stakeholders with shared interests, AI systems lack a human constituency. They have no personal interests, beliefs, or intentions of their own. Rather, AI systems execute algorithms and processes based on their programming and the data they analyze. From this perspective, AI cannot “speak” in the constitutional sense, as it lacks the personal autonomy, intent, and accountability that are inherent to free speech protections.

Intellectual Property and the Human Requirement for Authorship and Inventorship

The distinction between human and AI authorship is also firmly established in intellectual property law. In copyright law, the U.S. Copyright Office has a clear stance: only human-created works qualify for copyright protection. In recent cases, the Copyright Office rejected applications for copyright on works created solely by AI, such as artworks or literary compositions generated without human authorship. This reflects a broader legal philosophy that authorship and the associated rights require human creativity and expression.

Patent law, too, adheres to the principle of human inventorship. In order to apply for a patent, the inventor must be a person. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) explicitly requires that patent applications include the name of a human inventor. Recent attempts to list an AI system as the inventor on a patent application have been consistently rejected, both by the USPTO and in international jurisdictions. Courts have echoed this position, affirming that inventorship presumes the presence of human intellect, creativity, and intent.

The necessity for human involvement in both copyright and patent law reinforces the idea that certain rights and protections are reserved for beings capable of autonomous thought and expression. These legal principles align with the broader stance that freedom of speech—like intellectual property rights—presumes personhood.

AI as a Tool, Not a Rights Holder

In the digital age, AI is often responsible for creating content, shaping online conversations, and even generating persuasive or informative narratives. Yet, AI remains a tool—a powerful and complex tool, but a tool nonetheless. The speech that AI generates is, in a legal sense, not its own but rather the product of its programming and the humans who design, train, and deploy it.

This distinction is particularly important in light of debates over AI-generated content in areas like journalism, art, and social media. While AI systems can certainly shape public opinion or even influence elections through targeted messaging, this influence is fundamentally mediated by human decision-makers. Those responsible for the AI’s deployment bear the ultimate responsibility and accountability for its outputs. Extending freedom of speech to AI would obscure this chain of accountability and potentially open the door to more questions than answers.

The Path Forward: Clarifying AI’s Role in Public Discourse

As AI’s role in society continues to expand, the need for clear legal frameworks that distinguish between AI as a tool and human rights holders will become more pressing. While AI systems can contribute to public discourse and amplify human voices, they do not and cannot possess the freedom of speech that is fundamental to democratic society. Maintaining this boundary is essential, not only to protect human rights but also to ensure that AI is used responsibly, under the control and accountability of its human operators.

Moving forward, it will be critical for courts and lawmakers to address AI’s influence on free speech issues, balancing the innovative potential of AI with the need to safeguard human-centered values in the digital age. By reaffirming the principle that freedom of speech requires personhood, the law can continue to navigate the evolving intersection between technology and rights in a way that honors both human agency and innovation.