In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Sunday May 21, 2023

First, from www.bbc.co.uk: BBC Radio 4 - Last Word, 19/05/2023
Today on BBC Radio 4, Last Word spoke to Nell Minow and Professor Hannah Fry about the life and legacy of Newton Minow, the broadcasting regulator who was appointed chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission by President John F. Kennedy. They also spoke about mathematician Vicky Neale, who responded to her diagnosis with cancer by launching a podcast about the role of maths in cancer research. They also discussed campaigner Lois Keith and illustrator Gerald Rose.

Next, from www.motherjones.com: Montana GOP Just Passed an Aggressive Law to Thwart Climate Science – Mother Jones
Montana's Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed House Bill 971, which prevents state agencies from considering climate change when reviewing large projects such as coal mines and power plants. The law has been met with fierce opposition from environmentalists, who argue that it ignores the effects of climate change. Montana is home to the Bakken formation, one of the largest onshore oil and gas fields in the US, and the state's six coal mines account for almost half of the state's electricity. Several of the state's Republican lawmakers have ties to the fossil fuel industry, and the bill could set a dangerous precedent for other red states.

Finally, from www.nytimes.com: Dress Sneakers in the Oval Office? These People Think Not. - The New York Times
At a photo-op in the Oval Office this week, President Joe Biden was joined by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, all wearing a controversial footwear hybrid known as the 'sneaker shoe'. The shoe, which has neither the street cred of a sneaker or the formality of a dress shoe, has caused a stir on social media, with many criticizing the choice for not showing the respect due an occasion in the Oval Office. Style commentators have weighed in, suggesting that men should either commit to a dress shoe or a sneaker, but not an in-between.

---

Today's paper of the day is ChatGPT and Intermediary Liability: Why Section 230 Does Not and Should Not Protect Generative Algorithms by Hasala Ariyaratne. It explores the legal question of whether Section 230—an internet law that provides immunity for users and platforms against claims based on third-party online content—protects OpenAI (a generative artificial intelligence technology) for ChatGPT outputs. The paper argues that in most cases, Section 230 does not protect OpenAI for ChatGPT outputs because it was designed to protect intermediaries of third-party content, and ChatGPT does not function as an intermediary but rather creates content in part by itself. It also explains counterarguments to this conclusion based on legal tests used to analyze Section 230 claims. In the end, the paper argues that it is unnecessary to immunize generative algorithms like ChatGPT at this time.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~