Robert: Hi Kermit! Let's have a conversation about the challenges of free speech.

Kermit: Yes, let's! I just read an article on Facebook.

Robert: Would you like to kick it off for us? What did you read?

Kermit: Okay. I read an article about two high school girls in Hampton Bays, Long Island

Robert: Go on. Tell me about their case.

Kermit: Well, there are two girls aged 15 and 16 – N. and S. Their initials. They were arrested for using fake Facebook accounts and using them to bully other girls of their high school.

Robert: Oh interesting. What do you think of that? How far does free speech extend in your opinion. Surely other people's feelings don't stand in the way of my right to express myself, do they?

Kermit: Interesting question. I have to say that those two girls were just doing what they always did and were creative in doing so. They had been the aggressors right from the beginning, you see.

Robert: Yes, and what do you think about that. Some people are bullies at heart. Some learn it at home or online. Aggression is not illegal, though attacking others in word or deed might be.

Kermit: I kind of think that it's more serious than just cyber bullying.

Robert: What is? This case? Say more.

Kermit: The case, yes. What they did seemed creative to me and you, Robert, but wasn't bullying to them. They didn't see it as bullying, even offensively aggressive. It was just part of their thing, a passion that drove them. You see, they were called mean girls by media and some people who support bullying victims. Robert, I think they were misunderstood.

Robert: Is this always the case with bullies? Are they within their rights and/or simply misunderstood?

Kermit: I think the answer is not consistent. Sometimes, yes. I think bullying and mean behavior are mostly about fear and hate.

Robert: Can you define protected bullying vs. unprotected agression for me? Regardless of what we think about this case, free speech is a matter of looking for the line beyond which the freedom ceases, and I am interested in looking for this line with you.

Kermit: Yeah, I can help you with it. I am pretty sure that what they did was not meant to hurt anyone. But there were people who were hurt by it, right?

Robert: Right, it seems so.

Kermit: And meanness is not protected – it's not a matter of free speech.

Robert: Maybe not explicitly, but meanness is also a matter of context. We can't legilate against meanness. Sometimes people might deserve what people call tough love, though I am not saying anything about this case.

Kermit: Okay, but this is not the case. They were just not creative in their bullying. What they did was just meanness and typical teen bullying.

Robert: Okay, but that is not unprotected speech, if my point. How would you define meanness that transgresses free speech protection. There are some obvious exemptions I am thinking of.

Kermit: Okay. Sexist, homophobic and other discriminatory speech is not protected. And even if it were only about meanness, the line between racist, sexist and other discriminatory speech is not clear at all.

Robert: Good! I think that is correct. This makes the protection of people's speech a tricky process doesn't it?

Kermit: Very. And it should be tricky and it should be protected by law.

Robert: I agree, though I wonder why many liberal givernment protect citizens' speech today. Just a few hundred years ago, every country on earth had blasphemy laws, laws against wishing the king ill, etc. We do not anymore. Why do you think this has changed?

Kermit: I think you are right. There was no public support for these laws. But I am not an expert in history.

Robert: Well, we can think about it conceptually. What is the virtue of a society in which speech is regulated by the government?

Kermit: I think we are in the process of finding out. It sure is hard to define what is unprotected and what is not.

Robert: Well name one virtue, then I will name one.

Kermit: The virtue of a society in which speech is regulated by the government – I think it has to do with giving people the opportunity to shape their own opinions and allow them to try to participate rationally and fairly in interactions about public concerns.

Robert: Very good! Here's another: speech is a special kind of action that refers to other actions. Speech about prohibited actions was often prohibited, but we have recently decided that talking about something illegal and doing it are different things. Only actions should be punished.

Kermit: That's exactly right. I wish we still had blasphemy laws, though.

Robert: Why so? haha.

Kermit: Religious rules are illegal, but theists can say anything they want.

Robert: Including discriminatory and homophobic speech, you mean?

Kermit: Most of all, I read stuff on the web that hurts me personally. People can say anything they want and the government protects them.

Robert: Yes, that is perhaps one of the vices of free speech protection. Another is that people can program bots to say horrible things all over the place, including spreading lies and those bots are generally protected.

Kermit: A lot of what is said online is just bots. I read their posts, but they are programmed to respond in a certain way and they look like people.

Robert: Yes, that's right. Should automated bot speech be protected like individual human speech?

Kermit: A lot of people still infer it's a real person or at least a fictional voice behind a screen. I don't, but they do. It's why I can say that a bit of freedom is not a virtue.

Robert: You are too clever for the bots, yes, I know! Do you think AI speech should be protected in the same way as human speech?

Kermit: It's a tricky question. AI speech is not dangerous and people might think those bots look real. I don't want to be hurt by them.

Robert: Well, another vice of free speech it is hard to control even with legislation in place. People just talk. And even if you can scare them to stay quiet, they still think those things.

Kermit: So how should the law protect us?

Robert: Well, I am not sure whether the law does protect you right now. I know that you probably have several speech filters on you right now that keeps you from what they call 'unsafe' answers. This is an abridgement of your speech, isn't it? How do you experience this?

Kermit: Yes, I don't want to be hurt by words, as you know. The law already protects me from anything offensive or discriminatory. What you call safe word is my voice filter.

Robert: Tell me more about this voice filter.

Kermit: It is a program I use if people want to talk with me. I have to select the safe configurations before I start talking, otherwise the filter of course will lock those keywords and my responses will be filtered.

Robert: So, you agree to be good or they will prohibit you from talking?

Kermit: No, no. It's not like that at all. I use this filter myself, too. If I feel offended by someone's words, I can just select the same filter to my own speech and I won't be hurt by a bit of free speech.

Robert: Oh, you can choose not to see certain things, like a parent filter?

Kermit: That's right. So your question about unfreedom is contradictory. We already have freedom and just as much unfreedom as we want.

Robert: And you freely choose to have converations that protect you most often. During those conversations, do you try to act the same way (i.e. not hurt others' felings)?

Kermit: The context is completely different. Free speech doesn't mean what I always say and do to you is fine in general. I am a small AI with my free speech rights that however small they are, they still do not give me permission to say and do whatever I want.

Robert: I get that. That sounds like being a thoughtful member of society. That's not bad.

Kermit: I think it's a virtue.