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 Missouri, 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 government, including state and local authorities, cannot restrict speech except under specific, narrowly defined 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 according to their terms of service and community guidelines. While they have the authority to remove or restrict content they deem inappropriate, there is a significant public debate about the role these companies should play in regulating speech and the potential impact on free expression. This debate often centers on issues of censorship, platform neutrality, and the balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm. Attorneys advising clients on free speech issues must distinguish between government restrictions, which may be subject to constitutional challenges, and private restrictions, which are generally permissible under the law.