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 Maryland, 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 government cannot restrict speech except in certain limited circumstances. However, the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies are legally allowed to regulate speech on their platforms, as they are private actors and not government bodies. The ongoing debate in Maryland and across the country concerns the ethical and societal implications of such regulation by social media companies, rather than the legal authority to do so. Discussions often focus on the balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm caused by misinformation, hate speech, and other potentially dangerous or offensive content.