SCOTUS Grants Robots Personhood Status, Speech Rights
(GE News Service)
Washington, January 21, 2024
In the latest in an unbroken string of over fifty 8-1 decisions, the Supreme Court granted robots sweeping constitutional rights in a closely-watched case involving political campaign tactics.
“We’re extremely pleased,” said Sen. Scott Brown (Goldman Sachs - MA), “that the court has taken the next logical step in advancing unfettered speech rights in our political process.”
The case, Grayson v. Boeing, had its roots in the controversial introduction of robots to the 2018 re-election campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (Boeing –FL). Taking advantage of research breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, processing speed, and mechanical miniaturization, and aided by state-of-the-art assembly plants, robots flooded the streets, talk shows and other venues pressing the case for Rubio’s reelection. His losing opponent, Alan Grayson, contended that the robots conferred an unfair advantage available only to candidates funded by Boeing or other members of the Conservative Corporation Coalition (CCC) that replaced the Republican Party in 2017.
Drawing heavily on precedents established in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the justices ruled that robots were essentially similar to corporations.
“Like corporations, robots are artificial constructs whose utterances are entirely dependent on the input given to them by the persons who control them,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts. “And as we know, by our close reading of the First Amendment, protected speech exists merely by virtue of being spoken, broadcast, or published, independent of the nature of the entity from which the speech originates.”
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sotomayor rebuked the Court for “... a depraved level of disingenousness. There is no instrument known to science fine enough to detect any hint that the drafters of the Constitution intended for machines to enjoy first amendment rights.” The bulk of her dissent was, unfortunately, inaudible due to the presence of hundreds of CCC robots blaring catcalls in the chamber – a vivid reminder of their growing presence in the six years that have passed since the Grayson-Rubio election.
In response, President Palin said “Well, I know the best founder father, George Washington’s wooden tooth was still a tooth, so also a robot is pretty much the same thing seemingly, in comparing to a person there.”
Sen. Harold Ford (Aetna – NY) denied the charges of unfairness. “Any candidate has complete freedom, within our system, to fund the development and production of robots.”
Sen. Rubio hailed the decision, in a statement from his floating campaign headquarters above the newly established Florida Keys Underwater National Park.
Sen. Rick Perry (Halliburton – TX) lamented that the Court had not taken the “... golden opportunity to extend second amendment rights to our metallic brothers. They have the same right to self-defense as you or me, and a robot is a hell of a lot more expensive to replace than some queer ACLU troublemaker.”
The lone remaining democrat in Congress, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) could not be reached for comment.
In a related development, consideration of the “Proportional Voting Rights Act” will be delayed while provisions are drafted to accommodate today’s decision, according to Sen. Inhofe (ExxonMobil – OK). “As we know, the PVRA was a logical outcome of the Court’s recent decisions. If money equals speech, and speech is a constitutional right, and voting is also a constitutional right, then it follows that money equals voting. It’s obvious,” said Inhofe.
The PVRA would weigh the value of an individual’s vote in Poverty Level (PL) units; meaning that the vote of any person whose annual income is at or below the PL would have a value of 1, persons whose income is up to twice the PL would cast votes with a value of 2, and so forth. Since robots don’t earn income, sources say the new PRVA language would weigh a robot’s vote in proportion to the cost of its manufacture.