SCOTUS Grants Robots Personhood Status, Speech Rights

(GE News Service)

Washington, January 21, 2024

In the latest in an unbroken string of over fifty 8-1 decisions, the Supreme Court granted robots sweeping constitutional rights in a closely-watched case involving political campaign tactics.

“We’re extremely pleased,” said Sen. Scott Brown (Goldman Sachs - MA), “that the court has taken the next logical step in advancing unfettered speech rights in our political process.”

The case, Grayson v. Boeing, had its roots in the controversial introduction of robots to the 2018 re-election campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (Boeing –FL). Taking advantage of research breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, processing speed, and mechanical miniaturization, and aided by state-of-the-art assembly plants, robots flooded the streets, talk shows and other venues pressing the case for Rubio’s reelection. His losing opponent, Alan Grayson, contended that the robots conferred an unfair advantage available only to candidates funded by Boeing or other members of the Conservative Corporation Coalition (CCC) that replaced the Republican Party in 2017.

Drawing heavily on precedents established in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the justices ruled that robots were essentially similar to corporations.

“Like corporations, robots are artificial constructs whose utterances are entirely dependent on the input given to them by the persons who control them,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts. “And as we know, by our close reading of the First Amendment, protected speech exists merely by virtue of being spoken, broadcast, or published, independent of the nature of the entity from which the speech originates.”

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sotomayor rebuked the Court for “... a depraved level of disingenousness. There is no instrument known to science fine enough to detect any hint that the drafters of the Constitution intended for machines to enjoy first amendment rights.” The bulk of her dissent was, unfortunately, inaudible due to the presence of hundreds of CCC robots blaring catcalls in the chamber – a vivid reminder of their growing presence in the six years that have passed since the Grayson-Rubio election.

In response, President Palin said “Well, I know the best founder father, George Washington’s wooden tooth was still a tooth, so also a robot is pretty much the same thing seemingly, in comparing to a person there.”

Sen. Harold Ford (Aetna – NY) denied the charges of unfairness. “Any candidate has complete freedom, within our system, to fund the development and production of robots.”

Sen. Rubio hailed the decision, in a statement from his floating campaign headquarters above the newly established Florida Keys Underwater National Park.

Sen. Rick Perry (Halliburton – TX) lamented that the Court had not seized the “... golden opportunity to extend second amendment rights to our metallic brothers. They have the same right to self-defense as you or me, and a robot is a hell of a lot more expensive to replace than some queer ACLU troublemaker.”

The lone remaining democrat in Congress, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) could not be reached for comment.

In a related development, consideration of the “Proportional Voting Rights Act” will be delayed while provisions are drafted to accommodate today’s decision, according to Sen. James Inhofe (ExxonMobil – OK). “As we know, the PVRA was a logical outcome of the Court’s recent decisions. If money equals speech, and speech is a constitutional right, and voting is also a constitutional right, then it follows that money equals voting. It’s obvious,” said Inhofe.

The PVRA would weigh the value of an individual’s vote in Poverty Level (PL) units; meaning that the vote of any person whose annual income is at or below the PL would have a value of 1, persons whose income is up to twice the PL would cast votes with a value of 2, and so forth. Since robots don’t earn income, sources say the new PRVA language would weigh a robot’s vote in proportion to the cost of its manufacture.

**************
in honor of Billmon's grand tradition of news-snark. Pale by comparison, but since I made the effort to write it... and my apologies if I have offended any sentient, artificial beings who may be reading. I hope it provoked at least one chuckle through your tears.

well done Okie. I will do my part to make it go viral.

Ha ha, just great.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I was curious, is being cannibalized the wurst thing that could happen to a person?

DaveS

OkieByAccident_

Is this humor or have you been reading tea leaves again?

DaveS

In what respect, Dave? :^)

dan, Dave, I don't want to give away all my secrets. But leaves of some kind might have been involved...

Actually, I had read recently about Sarah being asked about her favorite Founding Father. She named George, oblivious to the fact (to most facts, but i digress) that GW isn't really considered a FF, that generally meaning those who were involved in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. GW was the first president and commander of the continental army, but not a FF by that measure.

catlady, did you ever read the late Asimov story where the robots think deeply about the 3 laws, and decide that they are actually the epitome of human, and therefore the 3 laws provide the basis for their own supremacy?

One spark for writing this was reading that since the first amendment only specifies "people" in the context of the right to peaceably assemble, the other rights can accrue to entities other than "people" - such as corporations. This makes me wonder whether Scalia et al think that corporations also have the ability to exercise religion.

Personally, I like the test that says "if you can't give it a rectal exam, it isn't a person".

I enjoyed Okie's exercise in fantasy-politics, but the niggling
academic in me can't resist pointing out that George Washington was
president of the Consitutional Convention, so has every right to be a called a founding father, unless the word "drafting" restricts attention to the very small circle of those who actually wrote up the proposals debated at the Convention. Indeed, it seems that the office of President of the U.S. was designed with him in mind, and, if I recall correctly, his final statement of support for the proposed constitution was a significant plus for those favoring its adoption.
The basic thrust of Okie's fantasy is, however, right on target.

That's got me reading the whole post through to find out where it strays from the mainstream narrative ... I think it was at the president palin paragraph.

Nice work!

There is hope, I had a long chat with my brother today about the need for a standing army, in case we (Canada) should need to defend our northern coast or stop a humanitarian catastrophe by force ... he finally began to see my point that an organized troop of men and women, trained, with transportation available, could be helpful during a natural disaster. Maybe some of them could even have guns.

But the idea that you have an army around to enforce your politics, foreign policy, diplomacy -- that makes no sense for me. Hasn't the US already preempted that role? Or should other nations take up arms in resistance? [good question re: Canada]

We discussed ethics, realpolitik, what reasons could support spending on military or policing. I do know we can do better than the current system of military in support of resource and human exploitation.

I hope that I'm not off topic Okie but your post was electrifying. What kind of world is coming down the pike anyway?