One of the first executive orders that President Trump signed after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, was titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. The order accused the previous administration of having “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms.”
What Trump was referring to as censorship was the government’s attempt to work with social media and broadcasting platforms to regulate misinformation, disinformation and misleading information by removing content, limiting its dissemination or labeling it, sometimes with fact-checking included. Similar accusations had been brought before the Supreme Court in 2024, where the justices sided with the federal government, preserving its ability to interact and coordinate with social media platforms.
However, the decision came during a trend toward deregulation of online platforms as Elon Musk removed guardrails after acquiring X, and Meta and YouTube removed policies meant to combat hate and misinformation. With Trump’s commitment to free speech protections through deregulation, online platforms are likely to remove more guardrails.
As a scholar of legal and political philosophy, I know that deregulation and free speech are often linked. Recently there has been a significant increase in broad court rulings on the First Amendment that support deregulation in all sorts of market sectors, from contributions to political campaigns to graphic labels on cigarettes.
This is not surprising considering that free speech has long been associated with the metaphor of free trade in ideas, closely tied to the value of a deregulated market economy. The presumption has been that the way to protect freedom of speech is through a deregulated marketplace, and speech on social media platforms is no exception. However, research on online speech shows the opposite to be the case: Regulating online speech protects free speech.
What is content moderation?
Free speech and its exceptions
Free speech in the U.S. has always been accompanied by a series of exceptions, laid out clearly by the courts, that constrain speech based on a competing concern for the prevention of harm. For example, speech that threatens, incites or directly causes harm is not protected speech.
Yet, when it comes to content-based regulation dealing with ideas or ideological expression, the courts have been clear that the government should not place burdens on speech that is objectionable. The government cannot censor speech that is false but does not lead to a specific, identifiable harm.
Despite these legal constraints, researchers have suggested that upholding the value of free speech requires some content-based regulation. To understand this seemingly paradoxical conclusion, it’s important to understand why free speech is valuable in the first place. Free speech enables you to be an autonomous…
