The Right to Speak
Is the Right to Be Free
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. But what happens when government officials lean on private platforms to do the censoring for them? That's the free-speech fight of our time, and it should matter to Americans of every political persuasion.
Censorship by Proxy
Most Americans now get news and debate public issues on a handful of platforms. When those companies remove posts, suspend accounts or quietly limit reach, they shape what millions of people see.
Private companies can set their own rules. The danger comes when government officials pressure them to remove lawful speech. Internal documents released in the "Twitter Files," evidence uncovered in federal litigation, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's own 2024 letter to Congress all show federal officials repeatedly pressing platforms to take down content.
Zuckerberg wrote that senior Biden administration officials "repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire," and said he regretted that the company didn't push back harder.
To be fair: the platforms made the final calls, and most removals came from their own rules, not government requests. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), the Supreme Court didn't rule that the pressure was lawful or unlawful. It found the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.
How the Censorship Machine Was Exposed
Tap or click each event to expand it.
1996Section 230 becomes law
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded online platforms from liability for what users post, and also protected their decisions to remove content they found "objectionable." It helped the internet grow. It also gave a few giant companies power over speech with very little accountability.
Oct 2020The laptop story is blocked
Weeks before the presidential election, Twitter blocked users from sharing a New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop and locked the Post's account. Facebook limited the story's reach. Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey later called the decision a mistake, and major outlets later authenticated material from the laptop.
2020–22COVID speech policing
Platforms removed or labeled posts questioning official positions, including discussion of the lab-leak hypothesis. The FBI and the Department of Energy later assessed a lab-related origin as likely, and the CIA in January 2025 judged it more likely with low confidence. U.S. intelligence agencies remain divided.
Dec 2022The Twitter Files
After Elon Musk bought Twitter, journalists were given internal documents showing extensive communication between the company and government agencies, including the FBI, about content moderation, along with internal "visibility filtering" of disfavored accounts.
Jul 2023A federal judge issues an injunction
In Missouri v. Biden, a federal district judge found evidence of a broad pressure campaign and barred many federal officials from coercing platforms. The Fifth Circuit upheld a narrowed version of the injunction.
May 2024NRA v. Vullo: 9–0 against coercion
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation when New York's top financial regulator pressured insurers and banks to cut ties with the group over its advocacy. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor said: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
Jun 2024Murthy v. Missouri
The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the plaintiffs lacked standing and did not decide whether the government's conduct violated the First Amendment. Justice Alito, in dissent, called it potentially "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years." The Court never decided the core question. The case later ended in a 2026 consent decree (below), but that decree binds only three agencies for 10 years and protects only the plaintiffs' own posts. A lasting rule for every American still needs Congress.
Aug 2024Zuckerberg's letter
Meta's CEO told the House Judiciary Committee that the administration pressured the company for months over COVID content, and that it was wrong to temporarily demote the laptop story based on an FBI warning about possible Russian disinformation.
Jan 2025Executive Order 14149
Signed January 20, the order directs that no federal officer, employee or agent “engages in or facilitates any conduct” that would unconstitutionally abridge Americans' speech, and tells the Attorney General to investigate the previous four years and recommend remedies. An executive order binds only the executive branch, and a future president can revoke it.
Jan 2025Meta ends U.S. fact-checking
Meta announced it would end its third-party fact-checking program in the United States and move to a Community Notes model, in which users add context to posts.
Source: Meta, “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes,” Jan. 7, 2025
Feb 2025FTC opens a tech censorship inquiry
The Federal Trade Commission asked the public how platforms deny or degrade users' access based on their speech or affiliations. Chairman Andrew Ferguson said: “Tech firms should not be bullying their users.”
Sep 2025Alphabet: government pressure was “wrong”
Responding to House Judiciary Committee subpoenas, Alphabet's lawyers wrote: “It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company moderates content.” YouTube said creators banned under its retired COVID-19 and election policies could apply to return. The same letter said the company enforced its policies independently, and the committee's top Democrat called the letter coerced.
Source: Alphabet letter to Chairman Jordan, Sept. 23, 2025 (PDF)
Mar 2026Missouri v. Biden ends in a consent decree
On March 25, Judge Terry Doughty entered a consent decree the parties had signed. For 10 years it bars the Surgeon General, the CDC and CISA from threatening Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn or YouTube with legal, regulatory or economic punishment to get protected speech removed or suppressed, and from directing or vetoing their moderation decisions.
Its limits: it protects only the plaintiffs' own posts, not everyone's. It covers three agencies and five platforms. Officials can still call a post inaccurate as long as they make no threat. The government admitted no liability, and only the parties can enforce it.
The 26 Words That Built Big Tech
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Section 230(c)(1) means a platform generally can't be sued over what its users post. Section 230(c)(2) protects platforms when they remove content in "good faith" that they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."
Without it, small websites, comment sections and forums could be sued out of existence over a single user post. That part is worth keeping.
The law was written in 1996, when the internet was a collection of message boards. Today, a few trillion-dollar companies use algorithms to decide what billions of people see, while claiming the protections of a neutral bulletin board.
Critics argue that the vague "otherwise objectionable" language gives platforms nearly unlimited cover to remove lawful political speech, with no transparency and no appeal.
- Narrow "otherwise objectionable" so liability protection for removals covers clearly defined categories, not viewpoints.
- Transparency requirements: platforms of a certain size must publish clear rules, explain removals and offer a real appeal.
- Condition immunity for the largest platforms on viewpoint-neutral moderation of lawful speech.
- Keep protections for small sites so reform doesn't lock in the giants' dominance.
Is It Protected Speech?
Test your knowledge of the First Amendment. Pick an answer for each scenario.
The Founding Principle
Six Steps to Protect Free Speech
Ban Federal Jawboning
Prohibit federal employees from pressuring or coordinating with platforms to remove lawful speech, with penalties and public disclosure.
Disclose Every Government Request
Every request from a government agency to a platform to remove or limit content should be logged and published.
Due Process for Users
Large platforms must give clear reasons for suspensions and a timely human appeal.
Reform Section 230 Carefully
Narrow the "otherwise objectionable" catch-all for the largest platforms, while protecting small sites.
No Federal "Disinformation" Boards
The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding true and false opinions for the public.
Free Speech for Everyone
These protections apply to every American: left, right and everywhere in between. Rules that silence your opponents today can silence you tomorrow.
Sources
- 47 U.S.C. § 230, Cornell Legal Information Institute.
- Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), Oyez.
- Missouri v. Biden, W.D. La., memorandum ruling (July 4, 2023, PDF) and injunction (PDF); Fifth Circuit, revised opinion on rehearing (Oct. 3, 2023, PDF), which replaced the Sept. 8, 2023 opinion.
- Mark Zuckerberg, letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, August 26, 2024, posted by the committee on social media; text reproduced by Reason.
- House Judiciary Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government (Republican majority staff reports): “The Censorship-Industrial Complex” (May 1, 2024, PDF) and “The Weaponization of CISA” (June 26, 2023, PDF). CISA disputed the second report.
- Jack Dorsey, Oct. 16, 2020: “Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix.” AP via PBS NewsHour.
- FBI and Department of Energy assessments on COVID-19 origins: CNBC, Feb. 28, 2023; CIA assessment: CBS News/AP, Jan. 2025.
- National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024), Supreme Court opinion (PDF).
- Executive Order 14149, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, 90 FR 8243, Federal Register via GovInfo.
- Meta, “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes”, Jan. 7, 2025.
- Federal Trade Commission, “Federal Trade Commission Launches Inquiry on Tech Censorship”, Feb. 20, 2025.
- Alphabet, letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Sept. 23, 2025 (PDF).
- Missouri v. Biden, consent decree, W.D. La., Mar. 25, 2026 (PDF), ¶¶ 16, 23–26.