Comments to the Federal Trade Commission
RE: Proposed Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems
AI Policy Statement; Matter No. P264200
July 30, 2026
The Future of Free Speech is an independent, nonpartisan think tank located at Vanderbilt University. We work to reaffirm freedom of expression as the bedrock of free and thriving societies through actionable research, empowering tools, and principled advocacy. The Future of Free Speech seeks to create a world where everyone’s right to freedom of expression is protected by law and reinforced by a culture that tolerates diverse viewpoints.
The outputs of generative Ai models are protected expressions. In Moody v. NetChoice, [1] the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an entity which compiles and curates speech has editorial discretion to do so. Developers exercise precisely that discretion when they select training materials, shape model behavior, and set output policies, just as courts have recognized for search results.[2] And the Court held that users have a right to receive expression conveyed through innovative methods.[3] As Justice Brennan stated in his concurrence, “it would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.”[4]
The liability conditions under Section 5 authority that the FTC cites on whether outputs reflect undefined “ideological objectives,” and it singles out particular political viewpoints for suspicion. If the Commission enforces in that way, it would directly adjudicate truth and ideological valence of individual answers to contested questions. In addition, the First Amendment recognizes no general exception for speech the government deems false, and restrictions targeting disfavored ideas draw the most exacting scrutiny.[5] Neither may the government compel “balance” in expression of a private entity. [6]
Read Full Filing
[1] 603 U.S. 707 (2024).
[2] See Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
[3] Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 108 (2017); Stanley v Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965).
[4] Lamont at 308.
[5] United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012).
[6] Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
Ashkhen Kazaryan is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, where she leads initiatives to protect free expression and shape policies that uphold the First Amendment in the digital age.