• Online speech receives robust First Amendment protections, but questions of state action and “jawboning” (government pressure on social media) are very much in flux, with plaintiffs needing to demonstrate direct harm.
• Private platforms and publishers have their own First Amendment rights and cannot generally be forced by government to carry particular viewpoints.
These cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s ongoing balancing act: enabling protection from certain harms (especially to minors and in the context of broadcast), while maintaining a strong presumption against government censorship and prior restraint across all forms of media. In the digital context, the Court is grappling with how to apply long-standing principles to new technologies and platforms.
The Supreme Court has shaped the constitutional landscape on censorship with a series of landmark decisions spanning traditional media, schools, broadcasting, and the digital age. Below are notable Supreme Court cases on censorship, including both historical landmarks and recent rulings:
1. Near v. Minnesota (1931)
The Court struck down a state law that allowed prior restraint (pre-publication censorship) of newspapers. This case established the fundamental principle that, except in rare circumstances, the government cannot prohibit publication in advance, affirming strong protections for press freedom.
“The liberty of the press, historically, has been confined to the immunity of the press from previous restraints or censorship.”
2. Reno v. ACLU (1997)
The Supreme Court ruled that portions of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. The law intended to restrict “indecent” material online, but the Court held it created “an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech” and extended full First Amendment protections to internet communications.
“The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.”
3. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
The Court upheld the government’s authority to sanction radio and television stations for broadcasting “indecent” material. In this case, it was comedian George Carlin’s “Seven Filthy Words” monologue. The Court found that broadcasts could be subject to greater regulation because of their pervasive presence and accessibility to children.
4. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
This ruling allowed public schools to exercise editorial control over student newspapers or expressive activities, so long as those actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The Court distinguished between personal student expression and school-sponsored speech, granting schools more leeway to restrict the latter.
5. Recent Digital and Social Media Censorship Cases
• Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (2025): Addressed regulations requiring adults to verify