One argument might be that it's not really a human's speech... but IMO that's a weak argument since the amendment is held to cover other forms of expression. Also it seems like a foot in the door towards "the mastermind of the unethical plan was a computer, therefore none of us are to blame for all the profit we made" excuses.
How about this for an analogy: Someone makes a machine that throws together scrabble tiles to make words, then chooses to take pictures of the results and sell them as art. The copyrightability may be suspect, but if a politician came in and demanded that certain words no longer be generated, that would still be a first amendment violation.
One argument might be that it's not really a human's speech... but IMO that's a weak argument since the amendment is held to cover other forms of expression. Also it seems like a foot in the door towards "the mastermind of the unethical plan was a computer, therefore none of us are to blame for all the profit we made" excuses.
How about this for an analogy: Someone makes a machine that throws together scrabble tiles to make words, then chooses to take pictures of the results and sell them as art. The copyrightability may be suspect, but if a politician came in and demanded that certain words no longer be generated, that would still be a first amendment violation.