BrianGarst.com

In a good piece at Big Government, Seton Motley highlights a recent effort by Obama administration advisor Tim Wu to expand the reach of government by arguing that the first amendment doesn’t apply to computers.

Wu’s argument is basically that computers are not people, therefore the First Amendment does not apply to anything they do.

In today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers. On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends.

In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking,” and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

This is a bad idea that threatens the government’s ability to oversee companies and protect consumers…

No, this is a good idea that prevents the government’s ability to infringe upon liberty. To say that computers don’t speak is as insightful as saying that paintings don’t speak, or ink doesn’t speak. In other words, it’s stupid.

Computers are tools. Like books, paintings, billboards, newspapers, etc. etc., they are a tool that can serve as a medium for speech. And just as the paint on the brush goes only where the painter tells it, the computer does ultimately what a real, breathing person programs it to do. How is the result, then, not the programmers speech?

Tim Wu is right. The First Amendment is an obstacle to expanded government regulation in control. It is one of the last obstacles remaining, which is why Tim Wu is just one of many on the left seeking to knock it down.

First Amendment Tim Wu