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 Dakota, 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 allowed to regulate speech on their platforms, as they are private businesses and not government actors. The debate in South Dakota and across the nation continues regarding the ethical and societal implications of social media companies regulating speech, and whether there should be limits to their ability to do so. While these companies have the right to enforce their own community standards and terms of service, the conversation about their role in public discourse and the potential need for regulatory oversight persists.