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 South Carolina, as in all states, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, protecting individuals from government censorship or punishment for their speech. However, this protection does not extend to private entities, including social media companies. These companies are legally permitted to regulate speech on their platforms, as they are not considered government actors. The First Amendment's restrictions on government regulation of speech do not apply to them. Consequently, social media companies can establish their own community standards and terms of service that may restrict certain types of speech that are otherwise protected under the First Amendment when it comes to government action. The debate over the role of social media companies in regulating speech is ongoing, with discussions centered on issues of censorship, platform neutrality, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harmful speech.