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 North Dakota, 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 state and federal government entities cannot unduly restrict speech, with certain exceptions for categories like incitement, obscenity, and defamation. However, the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies have the legal right to regulate the content on their platforms according to their terms of service and community guidelines. The debate over how and to what extent social media companies should regulate speech on their platforms is not a legal one, but rather a societal and ethical discussion. This debate often centers around issues of censorship, platform neutrality, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm.