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 West Virginia, 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 are legally allowed to set and enforce their own community standards and terms of service, which may include moderating or removing content that violates their policies. The debate over how social media companies should regulate speech on their platforms is not a matter of constitutional law but rather a discussion of policy, ethics, and the balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm. This debate continues to evolve, with some advocating for more regulation of these platforms to prevent abuse and misinformation, while others argue for less regulation to uphold the principle of free speech.