Over the past few years, the use of social media around the globe has reached immense proportions, with companies like Facebook now reaching over 2 billion users. As these companies gain power and influence, it’s easy to assume that many laws and obligations have to be met by these companies for user protection, but this is not the case. The origin of this problem dates back to the beginning of the World Wide Web. As people started to surf the internet, internet website owners worried that they would be held accountable for what users posted on these sites in the same way that newspapers, television, and other media companies are held accountable for their content. For example, Covington high-school student Nick Sandmann successfully settled out of court with CNN in a case of libel. As a result, the government solved this problem for internet website owners by creating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This Act states, “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.” This means that no website owners like Facebook or Twitter will be seen as a news outlet that could be held accountable for the content on their sites. As Jeff Kossett says, Section 230 consists of the “26 words that created the Internet”. So essentially, as long as the social media platforms are not biased towards what they censor, they have governmental immunity and cannot be held liable.

However, a study done by Pew Research Center concluded that 90% of Republicans believe that social media censor their viewpoints while only 59% of Democrats believe this. Whether or not this is true, this belief of social media bias led Republicans like Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio to demand more regulations for social media companies to increase accountability. The reasoning here is that if these social media platforms are no longer acting as impartial sources of information, then they can be treated as news outlets and not private sector entities. If social media outlets are becoming selective in their content by hindering certain political beliefs, then they don’t deserve government immunity. So to be clear, if social media companies censor information in a biased way, they should be responsible for the content they allow on their platform.   

Freedom of speech protects the right to state one’s opinions and the use of offensive words, but it doesn’t protect speech that incites violence. One example would be Twitter blocking President Trump and Hezbollah’s accounts. The United States Courts website clearly states that speech inciting violence is not protected under the First Amendment. This provision was implemented in 1919 after the Schenck v. United States case. Charles T. Schenck was a member of the socialist party and distributed around 15,000 fliers trying to convince men who were drafted into World War One to resist their services. Schenck argued that his First Amendment right allowed him to spread the fliers, but the Supreme Court ruled against him and convicted him on 3 charges. This case led to a provision against inciting violence under the protection of the First Amendment. A common example of this is “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” because it would cause a stampede in the attempt to escape, thus inciting violence through a situation that could cause harm.

As mentioned before, social media sites could be held accountable for their actions in the future, but as of now, what should the citizens of America be worried about? Ever since last week, President Trump and Twitter have been at war. On Wednesday, January 6th, 2021, Trump was locked out of his Twitter account after he posted an “incitement of violence” regarding the Capitol Hill riots. Then, on Thursday afternoon, Trump and his 88.7 million followers had vanished from Twitter entirely. This situation left many users feeling shocked that the President of the United States could be shut down without a moment’s notice. But though many want to feel outraged, what Twitter has done is not wrong in any legal sense. So what does this mean for the future of social media? It means that these unchecked platforms could keep developing and growing their algorithms until they have the means to censor any Democrat or Republican idea that they disagree with. If they can ban the US president, then no one seems safe from being censored, whether or not they have reasonable views. When smaller Twitter accounts that lack the power of a political leader are banned, they have no method of regaining their voice. So why not leave these social media giants? Well, this option is simply not feasible. With Twitter at 330 million users and Facebook at a staggering 2.7 billion, many top creators have procured a great following which they do not wish to simply abandon. Also, users of these websites are deeply linked with friends and family and sometimes can’t leave the website if it is their main way of communicating with their loved ones. Facebook and Twitter are simply too large and too influential in the lives of their users for the users to simply pack their bags and move on. Thus, users are trapped under these unchecked social media giants, unable to free themselves by their singular power.

Like all things, freedom of speech has its limitations. Some are seen on social media when private companies censor offensive content for legal reasons, especially with influential figures. Other limitations are put in place by the Supreme Court as well such as the illegality of making statements that could incite violence to protect the people. Nonetheless, the protection of this right is important to everyone and it needs to be protected in any way it can be.