I think we're going to find out some uncomfortable lessons about our current interpretation of free speech being incompatible with the current generative AI technology. Strictly, I think the judge's ruling is correct - this is definitely a constitutional issue of free speech. However, one mistake people make frequently in these debates is that not all forms of speech are necessarily protected by law - for instance, you can't scream "Bomb" on an airplane without repercussions.<p>However, I don't see how or when the law ever catches up with this technology. It's never been illegal to present misinformation about a political candidate. Photoshopping a candidate has never been illegal. Clearly, this is something new and different, but what exactly? How does this get legislated without trampling all over existing precedent?