In the 250 years since we declared independence from Great Britain, our nation has stood for the principles of democracy, equality, and freedom. The denial of representation enraged the first Americans, who belonged to a long tradition of representative government. Through its system of delegated and enumerated powers, the Constitution imposes significant limitations on the scope of government and protects our fundamental liberties. To ensure that citizens can deliberate and protest abuses of power, our Framers enshrined the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment.
Today, technology has enabled free political expression to take place beyond the print newspapers and small political gatherings of the Revolutionary period. The majority of present-day Americans obtain their news through social media and the internet, not traditional print newspapers. Online expression has produced many novel legal issues. After internet usage surged in the late 1990s, the judicial branch passed several key rulings that dictate how the First Amendment applies online. In 1997, two crucial decisions outlined the boundaries of digital speech. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court ruled that internet speech is lawful and the government possesses narrowly confined powers to restrict online speech. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Fourth Circuit established that websites largely possess immunity from third-party content, allowing social media outlets to permit expression without fear of sanction. Digital platforms do not have to fact-check and moderate content to avoid libel and other litigation, but can instead leave users’ posts uncensored.
Although subsequent court rulings further protected Internet companies, online censorship has been a source of controversy. Prominent social media outlets endorse freedom of expression: from YouTube’s assertion that “openness and free expression are at the heart” of their business to Meta’s desire to “create a place for expression and give people a voice.” Nevertheless, content restriction has directly contradicted these stated goals. Naturally, some intervention is necessary: language that directly incites violence and other inappropriate posts that violate the law should be removed. However, corporations that serve as public squares should not censor political messaging because it runs contrary to their economic or political interests.
Unfortunately, as a young conservative on social media, I have noticed that social media companies exhibit a leftward-leaning bias in the content they present to me. Media algorithms typically manipulate user data to create personalized feeds that maximize engagement. I am fed sports and pop culture content that genuinely matches my interests. However, content moderation boards have been more heavy handed in determining the kind of political content I see.
Indeed, corporations have silenced conservative viewpoints on contentious issues. During the 2020 presidential election cycle, Facebook and Twitter suppressed a New York Post article detailing Hunter Biden’s laptop scandal. Following January 6th, 2021, social media outlets, including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, barred President Donald Trump from their platforms, only reinstating his accounts in 2022 and 2023 after facing political pressure. YouTube even demonetized videos addressing less partisan issues – such as COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine War – due to mounting pressure from advertisers. Stifling public discourse in this way bears a resemblance to the undemocratic actions of dictatorial states. Notably, authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China silence dissidents to strengthen their hold on power.
Although social media has censored voices, an unlikely champion emerged to uphold a culture of free speech: Elon Musk. Finding Twitter’s policies politically biased and overly stringent, Musk gambled a substantial 44 billion dollars to acquire the company in 2022. Despite backlash from the media and advertisers, Musk overhauled the company, gutting the moderation staff and altering the app’s content removal algorithms. Although this decision initially drew popular ridicule and reduced the number of users, the app has subsequently enjoyed monumental surges in the number of monthly active users. Because X removes 1/350th of the number of posts TikTok and comparable social media apps remove, individuals spanning political ideologies have joined the platform to see a diverse range of viewpoints.
In a space largely driven by profit, Musk deserves more praise for the bold action he took to restore the full impact of the First Amendment online. Although in hindsight we can conclude his decision enhanced X’s long-term profitability, this outcome was not expected when he first acquired X. Indeed, his decision initially decimated X’s user base and advertising revenue. Musk could have opted to preserve the status quo and Twitter’s steady growth rate. Instead, he risked significant personal and business capital to prove limiting censorship was the correct moral (and business) decision.
Fortunately, the ramifications of Musk’s actions extend far beyond X. Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok previously limited political content, but now their content restrictions have become more relaxed. After Musk’s success, these corporations realized that limiting censorship would boost public perception and profitability. Meta, for example, adopted a new policy similar to X which combines the best features of a liberal free speech policy and content moderation. Rather than removing posts deemed to be misinformation, the company uses community notes to highlight potential misinformation. Under this system, posts remain online but warnings about false information accompany them, allowing users to judge the merits of the arguments the posts advance.
That said, it is problematic that Meta (and X as well) exploit polarizing false content to increase revenue. Because controversial posts perform exceptionally well, Meta uses community fact-checking to prop up false content and reap monetary rewards. Foreign intervention on Twitter and TikTok exacerbates this issue. Harmful actors like Russia, China, and Iran seek to disseminate content to American users, posing a national security threat social media companies must address. Even though a tension between profit and civic interest persists, social media companies have made significant headway. In allowing controversial–but not unlawful–content, platforms appropriately protect freedom of speech.
At Princeton, we are fortunate to belong to a community that supports civil discourse and does not suppress heterodox ideas. During freshman orientation, President Eisgruber recognized “all of us know that speech can be very harmful to people and do real harm. So, the question becomes: what are the ways that we can respond to that other than through censorship? What are the ways that we can build a better community?” After listening to Eisgruber’s remarks and interacting with other students during the past several months, I have come to appreciate how Princeton welcomes civil discourse between community members spanning the political spectrum. I hope social media continues to follow a similar paradigm, prioritizing the free exchange of ideas.
Only through exposing ourselves to the array of perspectives on offer can we learn from others and address deep-seated social issues. Social media reflects our beliefs, and censorship only reduces shared understanding, shutting down avenues that lead toward a better-informed citizenry. Although censorship can suppress issues temporarily, freedom of speech enables us, the people, to educate one another through civil debate.
Image Credit – Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.