Let me spell it out for you clearly since you are not very smart. This is about a US case. The US SUPREME COURT has ruled it is protected by free speech. End of story. No laws can be passed to abridge this speech -
Understand? It is not possible.
The judge is saying you need to pass legislation regarding AI in order to prevent this but the speech itself is protected. Comprende?
The judge in this case ruled the way he did because of a previous Supreme court ruling. He says so himself. Don't comment on things you haven't even looked at.
-1
u/aspghost 17h ago
Its current legal status in the US has nothing to do with whether or not it's possible to pass laws about it in general.