The Bill of Rights First Amendment grants the freedom of speech to all American citizens. However, with the rising use of social media and other websites, these rights can be confusing. Social media companies have banned certain people from their sites for what they post or say online. While it has been said this is against the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, others believe private social media companies are within their rights to stop someone from posting on their website. 

The use of social media is still relatively new and as such, laws or regulations have not been created for the original problems the internet has produced. In order to sign up for a social media account, most companies have you agree to their terms and conditions. These conditions often include when or why your account could be banned or censored. Social media companies are also private businesses. They do not have to allow people to post or have full freedom of speech. Students are often reminded of their digital footprint and how everything they post can never truly be deleted. Anything done on social media can be used against a person, whether online, in person, or in a courtroom. 

Many celebrities use social media to connect with their fans and as such, the posts or words of these celebrities can reach millions of people very quickly. If a social media company doesn’t support the message of a celebrity or any other person they can ban them or censor their content. An example of this is Kanye West. Kanye is an American rapper and a fashion designer, who has recently made controversial statements on his social media. In October, Kanye was suspended from both Instagram and Twitter for ‘antisemitic’ posts. Twitter owner Elon Musk said, “(Kanye has) violated our rule against incitement to violence.” There are often rules already in place to prevent hate speech on social media platforms. The use of hate speech can warrant an account being suspended, censored and or banned.

Kanye West is not the only prominent figure to be banned on social media websites. Former President Donald Trump has also been banned from social media sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. He was banned for inciting violence that led to the riot at the United States Capitol on Jan.6 , 2021. Many of his followers were distraught over him being banned on social media. They protested citing the former president’s First Amendment Rights were being violated over his accounts being suspended. However, Twitter and Facebook said Trump had broken their rules for inciting violence and hate speech. 

Often, when a user has been censored by a social media website, it is for using slanderous behavior or inciting harassment against a person or a group of people. Social media websites want as many people as possible to participate on their platform. When people are harassed online, they leave and the company loses revenue. For example, with the rise of antisemitism on social media platforms, in the form of jokes or blatant hate, Jewish people may not feel safe enough to exist on that particular social media site. To prevent large groups of people from leaving a platform, social media companies can instead censor the user from harassing a person or group of people, creating a safer space online for all users.

Social media sites do not necessarily have to uphold people’s First Amendment Rights as they are private companies. This has been shown through multiple celebrities being suspended over comments or posts they have made. Social media companies have rules in place to allow their sites to be inclusive towards all types of people. When these rules are broken, people may not feel comfortable or safe on the internet. The freedom of speech should be upheld, but private businesses do not have to allow insensitive posts to be made on their sites. While private companies do not take away the freedom of speech of individuals, they do restrict it on their platform if deemed necessary.

In 2022, the Eleventh Circuit decided that social media companies are privately owned companies and private digital squares. The Eleventh Circuit court is a court of appeals presiding over the districts of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. This conclusion grounded the basis for social media companies having the authority to restrict and censor speech that the social media company deems unworthy to be on the platform. 

However, social media companies are not entirely free to remove content or speech that is deemed unworthy on the platform. According to the Supreme Court, public and private entities are unable to host or promote speech that propose intimate endangerment or lawlessness. In contention, the more proper consensus would be to propose that instead of social media companies being private companies and private digital companies. Social media companies rather are public companies and public digital squares that should be unable to censor content unless the speech is slanderous and harmful.

The error in the Supreme Court ruling precedes that there was lack of consideration that the social media companies functionally operate as public companies that provide communication networks and tools to a great number of people. Regardless of whether or not social media companies economically function as private companies, social media is functionally a public company; social media as a perceived entity. This is shown in the more realistic functions of social media. The function of social media oftentimes is to provide information, news, and official statements from organizations and individuals to users reaching a larger audience more conveniently. The information, news, or official statements that are provided to users on social media are perceptually indifferent to a public company. This correlates to a similar notion that Matthew Gentzkow, an American economist at Stanford University, said, “Social media gives the average person or organization with internet access the ability to reach just as many readers as any major news source.” The indifference of social media to public companies even extends to the users’ perception of social media.

The public’s perception of social media from the perspective of the user radically changes the nature of social media companies. The public perceives social media as a public digital square, which means that social media is an online space for less-restricted dialogue and speech that can be publicly accessed. This was substantiated by the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, which forwarded that social media functions as a public digital square due to the social media forming the role of a public character that operates through the public.

Pragmatic examples of censorship on social media were  shown when Facebook users were banned for posting content that present visual information on the Vietnam war. Facebook considerably banned users and censored content that contained visual information on the Vietnam war, due to the insensitive nature of the image and the immediate danger that it could incite. Eventually, Facebook admitted that the censorship of the visual information was incorrect and reinstated the content of their platform. However, this misinterpretation and improper censorship forwards conversations on the necessity of a public digital square on social media. 

Social media companies are public companies and public digital squares, due to both the function and the general census of the public. Social media companies are public companies due to the indifference between the functions of public assets or tools and social media. Secondarily, social media companies are public digital squares due to social media forwarding a public character to the public or users on social media. Ultimately, this was pragmatically shown through the incident on Facebook concerning visual information on the Vietnam war. In this concept, the hope is to inspire individuals to reinterpret the issue involving social media and its nature.