Once again, the Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson nails it on the head asking, “Can someone sue AI for defamation”? (See AI bot scooped story on a politician’s affair, but does it have the right to free speech?). It is a question worth asking. Does simply “scouring” the internet for content and then sharing constitute the legal definition of defamation when it turns out not to be true?
AI models can create text that falsely accuses individuals of wrongdoing. In a recent court ruling, OpenAI prevailed in a lawsuit filed in Georgia that accused the ChatGPT maker of defaming a radio host by producing allegations and a fictional lawsuit against him.
In the ruling, Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Tracie Cason said OpenAI’s ChatGPT puts users on notice that it can make errors. Would the same criteria apply to other media (aka The Houston Chronicle?) if they included a disclaimer saying there could be errors in their reporting and thus not responsible for publishing false and damaging information?
I guess we need to remember Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) when using artificial intelligence.
One hundred years ago, the trail of the century took place in a little town called Dayton, Tennessee. The Scopes Trial, also known as the “Monkey Trial,” put John Scopes, a high school teacher on trial for violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Well before the advent of social media, the trail went viral thanks to two very high-profile attorneys (aka: influencers); William Jennings Bryan, a prominent figure in the fundamentalist movement and a former three-time presidential candidate and Clarence Darrow, a renowned defense attorney who was supported by the ACLU.
A little know fact was that the trial was actually seen as a way for the town to make money and garner national attention (the judge quipped he might use the local football stadium for the courthouse). It attracted newspaper reporters from across the country and was the first live broadcast of a trial in American history bringing the courtroom drama into living rooms everywhere.
At the core of the case was The Butler Act, a Tennessee law which made it illegal for any publicly funded school to teach the theory of evolution, especially any theory that denied the biblical account of divine creation and suggested humans descended from a lower order of animals.
Wanting to put together a test case (a sort of mock trial to test legal strategies) the ACLU found Scopes, a young high school teacher in Dayton, who volunteered to be the defendant thus setting the stage for what would pit science vs. religion.
The case highlighted the deep community divisions between traditional religious values and modern scientific thought. It also raised significant questions about academic freedom and the right of teachers to present scientific theories in the classroom.
The actual outcome of the trial was anticlimactic. Scopes was found guilty by the jury and fined $100. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which ruled that the judge, not the jury, should have imposed the fine.
Fast-forward to 2025 where the debate of religion in the classroom continues. In Texas, the discussion centers on the display of the Ten Commandments and the introduction of optional periods for prayer and Bible reading in public schools (although one has to question if it would be more beneficial to post the Ten Commandments in the offices of elected officials who seem to not remember all of them).
Supporters argue these measures uphold community values and are foundational to American law and education. Those opposed, including some faith leaders and advocacy groups like the ACLU of Texas, argue such policies infringe on religious freedom and violate the separation of church and state.
The state has also introduced the “Bluebonnet Learning” curriculum which was developed by The Texas Education Agency and includes religious references in lessons aligned with state standards (although given the actions of some elected officials, one wonders what those state standards are).
The issue of religion and education is not new, the Condemnations at the medieval University of Paris in 1201 were put in place by the Bishop of Paris to curb certain teachings as being heretical by the church, who at the time could be considered as powerful as any government (see Education under the microscope).
It’s a discussion that seems to not be going away. They say science cannot replace religion and religion cannot replace science. I guess the question is, can they co-exist.
They say old sins cast long shadows and the reported Jeffery Epstein client list is certainly overshadowing much of what is taking place in American politics.
The far right (MAGA) are not happy that President Trump’s administration has decided not to release the Epstein files. Supporters say that was a campaign promise made by Trump in August 2019, after Epstein’s death. To add fuel to the fire, Trump retweeted a post that alleged Bill Clinton was connected to Epstein’s death during that time.
Fast forward to June 2024 when Trump was asked if he would release various files including the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files and the Epstein files during an interview with Fox News, Trump responded, “Yeah, yeah, I would.”
Now the president has done a 180. On July 16, Trump posted to his social media platform blaming Democrats for the files and those who he called “past supporters” of his for the fixation on Epstein.
“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “b——,” hook, line, and sinker,” Trump wrote on his own conservative social media platform. Which is odd given that Trump played a significant role into spreading the “b——-” in the first place.
In an unlikely pairing, Democrats have jumped on the MAGA bandwagon also demanding the files be released. A super PAC working to elect Democrats to the House is naming and shaming Republicans who once demanded to see records from Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation but voted against the Democratic effort to release them.
What I am struggling to understand is what do either side hope to gain with the release of the files. Is it simply looking to hold Epstein’s clients accountable and bring them to justice? Maybe Republicans think they’ll find high-level democrats like Bill Clinton named while Democrats think they’ll find Donald Trump’s name in there. What does each side hope to gain?
I am reminded of a fundamental principle in legal settings; “do not ask questions you don’t know the answers to.”
It was this theory brought up in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where prosecutor Christopher Darden’s decision to ask Simpson to try on a glove found at the crime scene famously backfired. The glove appeared not to fit, allowing defense attorney Johnnie Cochran to deliver his unforgettable line: “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
Maybe those on the right and left don’t care where the proverbial chips fall and simply want justice, but in today’s hyper-divided political discord, I for one am not sure that is the case. I am reminded of the old adage, “be careful what you wish for”. There might be hidden downsides or unexpected challenges that come with getting it.
I got an “official” email from the Social Security Administration that caught my eye about the recent budget bill signed into law. It read in part…
“The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation’s economy.”
My first thought was wow, that could really save me some money when I file my 2025 taxes. I remember there had been some discussion about that but have to admit (like many other politicians) I did not read all 1,000 pages of the bill.
Turns out, the email was misleading at best.
The bill includes a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors ages 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. The president’s Council of Economic Advisers argued last month that nearly 9 out of 10 seniors would not pay any federal taxes on their Social Security benefits because the new deduction would eliminate their tax burden.
“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in the email. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans.”
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has used a governmental agency to promote his agenda. You can’t turn on the TV with seeing the Department of Homeland Security running anti-immigrant ads in the United States and overseas that repeatedly thank President Donald Trump for leading an immigration crackdown (at a cost of up to $200 million).
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said those ads were Trump’s idea, and during the administration’s transition to power, the president asked her to star in ads thanking him “for closing the border.”
Now we have the IRS celebrating the passage of the so called “One Big, Beautiful Bill”, which they called a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.
This has led some to worry that the message may violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political activities of most federal executive branch employees, including the SSA and its commissioner who was also quoted in the email as saying…
“By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned.”
While Trump repeatedly promised to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits, congressional rules prevented amendments to Social Security through the reconciliation process and so was not included in the bill.
The bill does include legislation that gives American taxpayers aged 65 and over a $6,000 boost to their standard deduction, which will impact all taxable income, including Social Security benefits, from 2025 through 2028 (individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples with incomes up to $150,000 can deduct the full $6,000).
Say, for example, a person received $60,000 in social security benefits. They would be taxed on $54,000 of the money in addition to any other deductions they may qualify for. And these savings expire in 2028 after Trump term ends leaving the next president and congress in the position of ending it, extending it, or modifying it.
Claims the major new spending bill has eliminated taxes on benefits for most recipients is disingenuous at best, but as with many political promises, it is always wise to pull back the curtain to see what is really taking place.
