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 Michigan, as in all states, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from government restrictions on speech, but it does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies have the legal right 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 in Michigan and across the country concerns the ethical and societal implications of such regulation by social media companies, rather than the legal authority, which is well-established. Discussions often focus on the balance between combating harmful content and preserving free expression, as well as the potential need for legislative or regulatory responses to address concerns about transparency, fairness, and accountability in content moderation practices.