We think of the First Amendment as a bulwark against government incursion into the freedom of speech. This has been so through each wave of technological innovation from the advent of radio and television to the dawn of the internet, and into the social media age. However, as more of our lives are accomplished online and with the advent of generative AI, government policy proposals increasingly place speech in their crosshairs, often with the best of intentions but also with the potential for collateral damage far beyond their intended scope.  This week the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case related to the federal government’s ban of TikTok, a law passed, in part, in an attempt to suppress political content on that platform. The Supreme Court’s NetChoice decision was critical in clarifying the government cannot control online access to election-related and political speech by asserting that platforms’ speech moderation decisions in their newsfeeds are protected by the First Amendment. Even so, Congress continues to consider regulations of synthetic content with an eye toward protecting elections. Given the court’s decision in NetChoice, and continued attempts to regulate speech and generative AI platforms, what are the implications for First Amendment law? Is adaptation of doctrine necessary to address emerging issues? Or are the old precedents still applicable?