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 California, as in the rest of the United States, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from government restrictions on free speech, but it does not apply to private entities, including social media companies. These companies have the legal right to regulate speech on their platforms, as they are considered private actors and not state actors. The ongoing debate in California and nationwide is not about the legality of social media companies regulating speech, but rather about the ethical and societal implications of such regulation. Discussions often focus on the balance between combating harmful content and preserving open forums for expression. While the First Amendment does not restrict social media companies, California has its own laws that may influence platform policies, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which gives consumers more control over their personal information, potentially affecting how social media companies manage user data and content.