The Debate Over Social Media's Role in Free Speech

Abstract

The debate over social media’s role in free speech has become heated and complex, as illustrated by the variety of briefs filed in the case. It brings to the forefront widespread, critical questions regarding how platforms manage the content posted to them and the power that control confers upon them to direct public discourse. On one hand, proponents of free expression argue that allowing platforms unbridled latitude to regulate content will choke off diverse and alternative viewpoints in the wake of profit-driven advertising pressures. On the other hand, proponents of regulation argue that the unchecked power wielded by platforms can be just as dangerous to free speech, and perhaps more so, than even governmental intrusions on expression through platforms.Both also understand the case differently. The United States Solicitor General insists that “‘under color of any State’ is simultaneously broader and narrower” than the principles discussed because “the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment reveal that provisions of the Bill of Rights that apply only to the Government direct restrictions against the Government, whether acting as regulator, lawmaker, contractor, or property owner.” Meanwhile, the Respondent perceives “a developing conspiracy against independent voices.” The four corners of the decision made by the highest court in the land will leave no barrier entirely unchanged. Before it is cast in stone, stakeholders both domestically and abroad must evaluate how it stands to shape the ways platforms manage content and the larger implications it carries for public discourse.

 Keywords free speech, social media, content regulation, public discourse, censorship, First Amendment, digital platforms, free expression