Query: In contrast to Part II, which addressed First Amendment coverage of robotic speech, Part III focuses on First Amendment protection of such expression. Why do Collins and Skover introduce the value of utility as a rationale for protection of robotic speech? Why do they choose, as they put it, to view First Amendment normative value theory from “on low” rather than from “on high,” and to promote realism rather than idealism?

Query: Do you understand what a free speech jurisprudence rooted in the norm of utility is to be and how it is to operate? Explain what you understand in that regard? Correspondingly, explain what that jurisprudence is not to be.

Query: The authors distinguish between legal fixes and technological fixes to empirically demonstrable individual injuries or social harms created by highly popular and useful technological inventions. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these different types of fixes? How do these fixes potentially impact First Amendment jurisprudence protecting computerized and robotic expression?

Query: Consider the general observations that the authors deem relevant to the evaluation of individual injuries or social harms that might successfully challenge constitutional protection for robotic expression. Do you agree with these points? In your view, are there other general observations that Collins and Skover ought to have propounded?

Query: Of what significance to the calculus of First Amendment protection is demonstrated by the lengthy narrative on robocalling? What general observations on free speech treatment of robotic expression can be derived from the example of the robocalling phenomenon?

Query: The Epilogue ends the first half of Robotica with the sentence: “If we only opened our minds and pondered the larger forces at work here, we might soon enough come to a conceptual juncture where Areopagitica and Robotica meet.” What do you understand as the meaning of this claim?

Query: The second half of Robotica presents a “dialogue” or “conversation” among five commentators and the coauthors. The five commentators (robotics and law scholars, free speech scholars, and First Amendment practitioners) contribute their observations and critiques of Collins and Skover’s main theses. And the coauthors respond to those commentaries by way of a “Reply."

Considering each commentary separately, what is the central thesis of the contributor? What are his or her most significant observations on and critiques of Robotica?

Considering the “Reply,” what are Collins and Skover’s most important responses to those observations and critiques? In your view, did the coauthors sufficiently answer the challenges against them? If not, what would you have had them respond?