Abstract
Up until very recently, AI-generated, or more precisely, machine learning (ML)-generated content was still in the realm of sci-fi. A recent series of important inventions gave AI the power of creation: Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) in 2013, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) in 2014, and Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) in 2017. Synthetic products based on generative ML are useful in diverse fields of application. For example, generative ML can be used for the synthetic resuscitation of a dead actor, or a deceased loved one. Can ML be a source of speech that is protected by the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 ECHR? In contrast to a tool, such as a pen or a typewriter, ML can be such a decisive element in the generative process, that speech is no longer (indisputably) attributable to a human speaker. Is speech generated by a machine protected by the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 ECHR? I first discuss if ML-generated utterances fall within the protective scope of freedom of expression (Article 10(1) ECHR). After concluding that this is the case, I look at specific complexities raised by ML-generated content in terms of limitations to freedom of expression (Article 10(2) ECHR). The first set of potential limitations that I explore are those following from copyright, data protection, privacy and confidentiality law. Some types of ML-generated content could potentially circumvent these limitations. Second, I study how new types of content generated by ML can create normative grey areas where the boundaries of constitutionally protected and unprotected speech are not always easy to draw. In this context, I discuss two types of ML-generated content: virtual child pornography and fake news/disinformation. Third, I argue that the nuances of Article 10 ECHR are not easily captured in an automated filter and I discuss the potential implications of the arms race between automated filters and ML-generated content.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Derrida (1982).
- 3.
Heidegger (2001), p. 188: “Language speaks.”
- 4.
McLuhan (1994).
- 5.
- 6.
Žižek et al. (2006).
- 7.
De Vries (2020).
- 8.
Giles (2018).
- 9.
Kingma and Welling (2013).
- 10.
Goodfellow (2014).
- 11.
- 12.
Heaven (2021).
- 13.
Hao (2019).
- 14.
GPT-3 (2020).
- 15.
- 16.
I will use the notions “freedom of expression” and “free speech” interchangeably, although it should be noted that the former is rooted in Art. 10 the European Convention of Human Rights and the latter in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
- 17.
Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), 26.04.1979, no. 6538/74. See also: Wilcox (2016).
- 18.
Heller and van Hoboken (2019).
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
European Court of Human Rights, The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom (26 November 1991), Application No. 13585/88, para. 60.
- 23.
European Court of Human Rights, E.S. v. Austria (25 October 2018), Application No. 38450/12, para. 42.2. See also: Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A No. 24), and Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], No. 29183/95, §45, ECHR 1999-I).
- 24.
Kaminski (2017), p. 610.
- 25.
European Court of Human Rights, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary, App no 37374/05 (ECtHR 14 April 2009), para. 26.
- 26.
Lamo and Calo (2019).
- 27.
Ye (2018).
- 28.
- 29.
Goodfellow (2018).
- 30.
Axberger (2019), p. 16.
- 31.
Stupp (2019).
- 32.
Ajder (2019).
- 33.
Ajder (2019).
- 34.
- 35.
Mai (2020).
- 36.
Guerrasio (2019).
- 37.
- 38.
European Court of Justice (ECJ), Costeja, Case C-131/12, 13 May 2014.
- 39.
Kulk and Borgesius (2018).
- 40.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, A 24.
- 41.
US Supreme Court, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (122S.Ct. 1,389 (2002)).
- 42.
Idem, p. 235.
- 43.
Mclean (2017), p. 222.
- 44.
Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2012s. 400 (Mangamålet).
- 45.
Westrin (2013).
- 46.
Cole (2019).
- 47.
Roettgers (2019).
- 48.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions. Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. COM (2018) 236 final Brussels, 26/4/2018.
- 49.
European Commission (2020b).
- 50.
COM(2018) 236 final Brussels, 26/4/2018, p. 9.
- 51.
COM(2018) 236 final Brussels, 26/4/2018, p. 13.
- 52.
- 53.
CJEU, Case C-401/19, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, action brought on 24 May 2019.
- 54.
Spoerri (2019).
References
Ajder H (2019) The ethics of deepfakes aren’t always black and white. The Next Web. Online available at: https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/06/16/the-ethics-of-deepfakes-arent-always-black-and-white/
Axberger H-G (2019) Ytttrandefrihetsgrundlagarna. Yttrandefrihetens gränser efter 2019 års grundlagsreform. Nordstedts Juridik, Stockholm
Bellovin SM, Dutta PK, Reitinger N (2019) Privacy and synthetic datasets. Stanford Technol Law Rev 22:1–39
Benjamin SM (2012) Algorithms and speech. Univ Pa Law Rev 161:1445–1494
Benjamin SM (2021) The first amendment and algorithms. In: Barfield W (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the law of algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 606–631
Buitelaar J (2017) Post-mortem privacy and informational self-determination. J Ethics Inf Technol 19(2):129–142
Chesney R, Citron DK (2019) Deep fakes: a looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. Calif Law Rev 107:1753–1820
Cole S (2019) This Horrifying App Undresses a Photo of Any Woman With a Single Click. Vice - Motherboard, Online available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzm59x/deepnude-app-creates-fake-nudes-of-any-woman
Craig CJ, Kerr IR (2019) The Death of the AI Author. Available at SSRN 3374951
De Vries K (2020) You never fake alone. Creative AI in action. Inf Commun Soc 23(14):2110–2127
Derrida J (1982) Signature, event, context. In: Margins of philosophy. University of Chicago Press, pp 307–330
European Commission (2020a) Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence – Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework. Luxembourg
European Commission (2020b) The Digital Services Act: ensuring a safe and accountable online environment. Online available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en
Gervais D (2019) The machine as author. Iowa Law Rev 105:2053–2106
Giles M (2018, February 21) The GANfather: the man who’s given machines the gift of imagination. MIT Technology review. Online available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610253/the-ganfather-the-man-whos-given-machines-the-gift-of-imagination/
Goodfellow I (2018) Defense Against the Dark Arts: An overview of adversarial example security research and future research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:.04169
Goodfellow I et al (2014) Generative adversarial nets. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst:2672–2680
GPT-3 (2020) A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human? GPT-3, The Guardian. Online available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3
Guerrasio J (2019) 64 years after James Dean’s death, the actor will star in a new movie. Some in Hollywood are horrified but the advances in visual effects could make it commonplace. Business Insider. Online available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/james-dean-posthumous-casting-in-new-movie-through-visual-effects-2019-11?r=US&IR=T
Hao K (2019) A college kid’s fake AI-generated blog fooled tens of thousands. This is how he created it. MIT Technology Review. Online available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/14/1006780/ai-gpt-3-fake-blog-reached-top-of-hacker-news/
Harbinja E (2017) Post-mortem privacy 2.0: theory, law, and technology. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 31(1):26–42
Hayles K (1999) How we became posthuman. Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Heaven WD (2021) Why GPT-3 is the best and worst of AI right now. Open AI’s language AI wowed the public with its apparent mastery of English – but is it all an illusion? MIT Technol Rev 124(2):34–35
Heidegger M (2001) Poetry, language, thought. Harper & Row, New York
Helberger N, Eskens S, Drunen M, Bastian M, Möller J (2019) Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression. Council of Europe - Institute for Information Law (IViR, Amsterdam), Strasbourg
Heller B, van Hoboken J (2019) Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law (report). Transatlantic Working Group
Kaloskampis I (2019) Synthetic data for public good. UK’s Office for National Statistics
Kaminski ME (2017) Authorship, disrupted: AI authors in copyright and first amendment law. UC Davis Law Rev 51:589–616
Kingma DP, Welling M (2013) Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114
Kittler F (1986) Gramophone, film, typewriter. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Kulk S, Borgesius FZ (2018) Privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to be forgotten in Europe. In: Polonetsky J, Tene O, Selinger E (eds) Cambridge handbook of consumer privacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 301–320
Lamo M, Calo R (2019) Regulating bot speech. UCLA Law Rev 66:988–1028
Mai Q (2020) A mother who lost her only daughter decides to make her into an AI. People, Online available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A4jZI2FjCDNdwfRhjJh68a4QCvfUF-hTWBIHUjEnR9I/mobilebasic?form=MY01SV&OCID=MY01SV and https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/gY_KetYopg-FZZ8BXaUwvA
Marsden C, Meyer T (2019) Regulating disinformation with artificial intelligence: effects of disinformation initiatives on freedom of expression and media pluralism. European Parliament
Massaro TM, Norton H (2015) Siri-ously? Free speech rights and artificial intelligence. Northwest Univ Law Rev 110:1169–1194
Massaro TM, Norton H, Kaminski ME (2016) Siri-ously 2.0: what artificial intelligence reveals about the first amendment. Minnesota Law Rev 101:2481–2525
Mclean C (2017) The uncertain fate of virtual child pornography legislation. Cornell J Law Public Policy 17:221–246
McLuhan M (1994) Understanding media. The extensions of man. MIT Press
Norton H (2017) Robotic speakers and human listeners. Seattle Univ Law Rev 41:1145–1152
Roettgers J (2019) Naughty America wants to monetize Deepfake porn. Variety. Online available at: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/deepfake-porn-custom-clips-naughty-america-1202910584/
Roth A (2021) European MPs targeted by deepfake video calls imitating Russian opposition. The Guardian. Online available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/22/european-mps-targeted-by-deepfake-video-calls-imitating-russian-opposition
Spoerri T (2019) On upload-filters and other competitive advantages for big tech companies under Article 17 of the directive on copyright in the digital single market. J Intell Prop Inf Technol E-Commer Law 10:173–186
Stupp C (2019) Fraudsters used AI to Mimic CEO’s voice in unusual cybercrime case. Scams using artificial intelligence are a new challenge for companies. The Wallstreet Journal. Online available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fraudsters-use-ai-to-mimic-ceos-voice-in-unusual-cybercrime-case-11567157402
Westrin S (2013) “I skuggan av teckning 39” (“In the shadow of drawing 39”). Svenska Dagbladet
Wilcox V (2016) A Company’s right to damages for non-pecuniary loss. Cambridge University Press
Witt L (2016) Preventing the rogue bot journalist: protection from non-human defamation. Colorado Technol Law J 15:517–548
Wu T (2012) Machine speech. Univ Pa Law Rev 161:1495–1533
Ye G et al (2018) Yet another text captcha solver: a generative adversarial network based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ACM, pp 332–348
Žižek S, Fiennes S, Rosenbaum M, Misch G, Wieser R, Schnorr R et al (2006) The pervert’s guide to cinema
Legislation, Regulation, and Policy Documents
Regulation 2021/1232/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on a temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC as regards the use of technologies by providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services for the processing of personal and other data for the purpose of combating online child sexual abuse
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC. COM(2020) 825 final
Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions. Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. COM(2018) 236 final Brussels, 26/4/2018
Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, CETS No.201, Lanzarote, 25/10/2007
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA
PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act), 108-21, 108th Congress session (2003)
Child Pornography Prevention Act, H.R. 4123 (IH), 104th Congress 2d session (1996)
Case Law
CJEU, Case C-18/18, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited, ECLI:EU:C:2019:821
CJEU, Case C-401/19, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, action brought on 24 May 2019. Opinion by A-G Saugmandsgaar Øe, ECLI:EU:C:2021:613
CJEU, Case C-131/12, Costeja, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317
ECtHR, E.S. v. Austria, 25 October 2018, Application No 38450/12
ECtHR, Fressoz and Roire v. France ([GC], No. 29183/95, 1999-I)
ECtHR, The Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, Application No. 13585/88
ECtHR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), 26 April 1979, no. 6538/74
ECtHR, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, A 24
US Supreme Court, Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (122S.Ct. 1389 (2002)
Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2012 s. 400 (Mangamålet)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Vries, K. (2022). Let the Robot Speak! AI-Generated Speech and Freedom of Expression. In: Hindelang, S., Moberg, A. (eds) YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions 2021. YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions, vol 2021. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2021_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/16495_2021_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08513-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08514-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)