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 Jersey, 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. While they have the authority to remove or restrict content they deem inappropriate or in violation of their rules, this practice has sparked a significant debate. Critics argue that social media platforms have become the modern public square, and excessive regulation of speech by these companies could undermine the principles of free expression. Proponents of regulation by social media companies contend that it is necessary to prevent harm, such as the spread of misinformation or hate speech. The debate continues as to what degree and in what manner these platforms should regulate user content, balancing the need for open discourse with the prevention of harm.