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 New Hampshire, as in all states, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from government restrictions on free speech. This means that the state and federal government cannot pass laws or take actions that unjustly curtail freedom of expression. However, the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies are legally permitted to regulate speech 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 is not a legal one, but rather a societal and ethical discussion. It revolves around issues of censorship, platform responsibility, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm. While the government cannot compel these companies to follow the same standards as public institutions regarding free speech, there is ongoing public and legislative discourse about the role and power of social media in regulating speech and the potential need for regulatory oversight.