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 Iowa, as in all states, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from government actions that would abridge their freedom of speech. This means that the state and federal governments cannot restrict speech except under certain limited circumstances that have been recognized by the courts, such as speech that incites imminent lawless action or constitutes true threats. However, the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies are legally allowed to regulate the content on their platforms according to their terms of service and community guidelines. The debate in Iowa mirrors the national conversation about the role of social media companies in regulating speech, balancing the need for open discourse with the prevention of harm caused by misinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content. While the government cannot compel these companies to host speech, there is ongoing discussion about the best ways to ensure that these powerful platforms are held accountable for their content moderation policies and the impact they have on public discourse.