Today three forces threaten to limit speech. The first pits guns against words, creating a showdown between the Second Amendment and the First. The second sees powerful speakers invoking their right to speak in order to silence other people’s speech. Third, and perhaps the most subtle, the monitoring of our digital speech by government and business chills our ability to say what we want online. Free speech will survive provided we remain vigilant in defending the speech rights of the minority against what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

The rapid development of robotics and intelligent systems raises the issue of how to adapt the legal framework to accidents arising from devices based on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. In the light of the numerous legal studies published in recent years, it is clear that ‘tort law and AI’ has become one of the hot topics of legal scholarship both in national and comparative contexts.

Tort law has a number of systems and structures by which the system will be used to address the challenges posed by AI technologies. It will not be necessary to significantly alter our understanding of tort law’s foundations to be ready for AI, and this may significantly and potentially affect AI innovation and utilization.

The IoT raises several questions germane to traditional products liability law and the UCC’s warranty provisions. These include how best to evaluate and remedy consumer harms related to insecure devices, malfunctioning devices, and the termination of services and software integral to a device’s operations. Consider that the modern IoT vehicle with an infotainment system generates massive quantities of data about drivers, and that mobile applications can be used to impact the operations of these vehicles.

Recent revelations surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election and the role that "fake news" may have played in shaping voter preferences have sparked a broad conversation on how to combat the spread and influence of disinformation online. Emerging from this conversation has been a number of proposals that seek to pass legislation or promulgate regulations that would make it more difficult for disinformation to flow through the Web. To that end, these interventions will confront the long-standing legal protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA 230), a key legal provision which broadly shields platforms from legal liability for the actions of third-party users of their services. The present-day debates on how to address "fake news" will join the legacy of efforts to reform or eliminate the shield provided by CDA 230. This chapter seeks to address three questions given this historical background. First, would modifications to CDA 230 pave the way to an effective response to the challenges posed by disinformation online? Second, if so, should such modifications be made? Finally, how should such modifications be crafted?