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. The First Amendment is inapplicable when a nongovernmental person or entity—such as a private business—seeks to limit free speech.

And some types of speech are afforded more protection than others. For example, commercial speech—speech that proposes a commercial transaction—is entitled to First Amendment protection, but less protection than political speech.

In the 1980 case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment:

1. Whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading;

2. Whether the government interest asserted to justify the regulation is "substantial";

3. Whether the regulation "directly advances" that government interest;

4. Whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.

In Mississippi, 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 the state and federal government cannot unduly restrict an individual's right to express themselves. However, this protection does not extend to private entities, such as businesses, which means that private businesses in Mississippi can set their own rules regarding speech on their premises. When it comes to commercial speech, which includes advertising and other speech proposing a commercial transaction, it is protected under the First Amendment but to a lesser degree than political speech. The Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission case established a four-part test to assess the constitutionality of commercial speech regulations. This test is used to evaluate whether a regulation in Mississippi is in line with First Amendment protections by considering the legality and truthfulness of the speech, the substantiality of the government interest, the advancement of that interest by the regulation, and the extent of the regulation's necessity.