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 Georgia, 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 action. The ongoing debate in Georgia and across the nation is not about the legality of social media companies regulating speech, but rather about the ethical and societal implications of such regulation. Discussions often focus on the balance between combating harmful content and preserving open forums for expression, as well as the potential need for legislative or regulatory responses to address concerns about censorship, misinformation, and other issues related to speech on social media platforms.