In Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U. S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the conviction of a man found guilty of stalking a female musician, ruling that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech requires that prosecutors show that he was aware of the threatening nature of his communications. The ruling provided additional guidance on

Elonis v. United States (2015) reversed a conviction of a man convicted of
making threats via Facebook posts. True threats are not protected by the
First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google (2023) declined to rule on whether targeted recommendations by a social media company’s algorithms would fall outside the liability of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.   Instead, the Court said that its ruling in Twitter v. Taamneh on the same day “is sufficient to acknowledge

In Gonzalez v. Google and Taamneh v. Twitter, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 addressed the liability of social media platforms for allowing the terrorist group ISIS to post videos, communicate its messages and radicalize new recruits. Families of people killed in ISIS attacks sought damages under a 2016 provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act that allowed secondary

James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, was sued by citizen who claimed Freed violated the First Amendment when Freed blocked the citizen’s posts on Freed’s Facebook page. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded lower rulings in favor of Freed to determine whether Freed had authority to make posts on behalf of the city, which would mean he engaged in state action in blocking the citizen.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. that
school officials violated the First Amendment when it disciplined a
cheerleader for her vulgar Snapchat post.

Missouri v. Biden involved a claim by the states of Missouri and Louisiana and several social media users that federal government officials compelled social media companies to remove certain content and to refuse to post other content because the government did not like the viewpoints or messages of that speech. The federal government officials contended that

In Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court identified what it called “the relevant constitutional principles” involving governmental regulation of social media platforms.  The case was a consolidation of two cases involving constitutional challenges to 2021 laws in Florida and Texas. These state laws regulated the content moderation choices of social media platforms, such as

The Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri dismissed claims that the federal government likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor content. The Court concluded the lower courts had erred in extending standing to the parties who had not established an adequate case or injury.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in NetChoice v. Paxton upheld a Texas
law barring social media companies from censoring users based on their
viewpoints.

Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) invalidated a state law prohibiting sex
offenders from accessing social media. The court said the law barred First
Amendment rights on websites.

The Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland (2025) upheld a law banning the social media’s operation in the United States unless it was sold to non-Chinese owners. The Court rejected TikTok’s argument that the law violated First Amendment right by limiting free speech.  Three days after the ruling and on his first day of his second

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that social media companies did not “aid and abet” an ISIS terrorist attack simply because their algorithms recommended ISIS content or they failed to remove content that recruited members and spread terrorist messages.   The case overturned a ruling by the 9th U. S. Circuit