1

Political Censorship in Social Media, Illegal, or Undefined?

As of 2022, nearly five billion people worldwide use social media, and nearly half of the

adults in the United States use social media as a primary news source (Walker 1; Global Digital

Impacts). Social media companies currently have just about no legal restrictions on what they

can and cannot censor. This is due to the first amendment of the United States Constitution not

directly mentioning social media. This causes there to be a gray area, allowing social media

companies to censor according to a political agenda. Due to the fact that social media platforms

have amassed vast audiences of people, and many of those people use social media as their way

of hearing the news, social media companies censoring certain things based on a political agenda

or any other reasons is unacceptable and misleading to their audience for many reasons.

First of all, Social media companies having full autonomy to censor whatever they want,

although not directly against the first amendment, does violate certain state constitutions and

inherent human rights. In fact, Recently retired U.S Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

compared the internet to a public forum, akin to a public street or park. Kennedy’s opinion,

voiced in Packingham v. North Carolina, is that “the greatest battleground for free expression

both nationally and globally occurs online with social media”(Hudson 2). The rhetoric used by

Justice Kennedy in this statement reflects his view that the public forum doctrine must change,

no longer only protecting public parks and streets but the internet as well. Understandably, the

first amendment does not have a clause protecting freedom of speech on social media platforms

because social media did not exist 250 years ago. Although this makes sense, the first

amendment still must be amended disallowing political censorship in social media.

On top of this, Social media companies censor based on their own political agendas,

which can alter the views of their users and in turn, potentially change the results of an election.
 2

A study conducted by Liverpool University in China found that social media companies censor

political opinions based on their affiliation (Jiang 5). The study determined that from a sample

of 14 censored posts, nine were right-wing affiliated. This is a perfect example of social media

companies censoring based on their own political agenda and demonstrates how important it is to

address this issue. Another shocking statistic according to Statistica.com is that nearly 42

percent of adults in the United States use social media as their primary news source (Walker 2).

This vast, unsuspecting audience amassed by social media companies gives them the ability to

all but choose the outcome of political elections because they basically decide what to show and

what not to show voters.

In addition, According to the precedent created by Texas v. Johnson, social media

companies censoring political views should be illegal. Texas v. Johnson was a supreme court

case between Gregory Lee Johnson and the state of Texas regarding every American’s freedom

of expression (O’Kelly). The court determined and in turn created a precedent that people are

allowed to express their opinions and political views regardless of if an audience takes offense or

disagrees with that view. Social media companies’ censorship of political views on their

platforms simply because they do not agree with said views is very clearly illegal according to

this precedent. Despite the fact that none of the nine justices that voted in the five to four

majority decision are still on the supreme court, precedents established by that group are still

considered fact and are used in court cases all over the country.

Finally, Social media companies, although disputed by the courts, argue that within the

first amendment’s right to freedom of speech is an underlying right to muzzle speech (Barnes 4)

lower courts and state constitutions currently disagree with this argument provided by social
 3

media companies and it is only a matter of time before it reaches the supreme court and will most

likely be shut down.

Political censorship in social media is something that affects just about everyone, it

allows social media executives to decide elections that affect everybody (Kelly). If nothing is

done about political censorship in social media, Social media executives will elect pawns into

positions of power in the government essentially allowing them to control the country.

Works Cited

Garrett, R.Kelly. “Social Media’s Contribution to Political Misperceptions in U.S. Presidential

 4

Elections.” PLoS ONE, vol. 14, no. 3, Mar. 2019, pp. 1–16,

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213500.

“Global Social Media Statistics - DataReportal – Global Digital Insights.” DataReportal,

https://datareportal.com/social-media-users.

Hudson, David L., Jr. "SOCIAL CLASHES: DIGITAL FREE SPEECH IS A HOT LEGAL

BATTLEGROUND." ABA Journal, vol. 105, no. 3, Apr. 2019, p. 40. Gale General

OneFile,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A584495942/ITOF?u=29081_mdpls&sid=bookmark-ITOF&xid=

0bb5edd4. Accessed 7 Oct. 2022.

Jiang, Yue, and Xianwen Kuang. “Selective Censorship on Rightists and Leftists?

An Observation and Analysis of Censored Social Media Posts in China.” Problems of

Post-Communism, Sept. 2021, pp. 1–11. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1969249.

O’KELLEY, ELIJAH. “State Constitutions as a Check on the New Governors: Using State Free

Speech Clauses to Protect Social Media Users from Arbitrary Political Censorship by

Social Media Platforms.” Emory Law Journal, vol. 69, no. 1, Dec. 2019, pp. 111–61.

EBSCOhost,

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=139915141&site=eho

st-live.

Walker, Mason, and Katerina Eva Matsa. “News Consumption across Social Media in 2021.”
 5

Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, Pew Research Center, 20 Sep. 2021,

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/09/20/news-consumption-across-social-me

dia-in-2021/.