The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law abridging (curtailing) the freedom of speech. Thus, free speech is only protected by the U.S. Constitution when it is the government that seeks to limit free speech. And the First Amendment is inapplicable when a nongovernmental person or entity—such as a social media company—seeks to limit free speech. But despite the legal authority of social media companies to regulate speech on their platforms, there is an ongoing debate about whether such companies should regulate speech, and if so, the extent and manner in which they should do so.

In Alaska, as in all states, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from government restrictions on free speech, but it does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies have the legal authority to regulate speech on their platforms, as they are considered private actors and not subject to the First Amendment's restrictions on government. The ongoing debate about the role of social media companies in regulating speech centers on issues of censorship, platform neutrality, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm. While social media companies have the right to enforce their own community standards and terms of service, their decisions can have significant implications for public discourse, leading to discussions about potential regulatory responses or the need for transparency and accountability in content moderation practices.