their age before accessing certain online content, upholding the law with intermediate scrutiny since it was intended to protect children and only incidentally affected protected speech.
• Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024): The Court held that the First Amendment protects the right of platforms (such as social media companies) to curate and moderate content and forbids states from forcing platforms to host speech they wish to exclude. Similarly, government may not interfere with private actors’ speech to compel ideological balance.
• Murthy v. Missouri (2024-2025): The Supreme Court ruled that, to challenge government attempts to influence social media content moderation, plaintiffs must show direct, likely future harm traceable to government actions. The case centered on allegations that the government “coerced” platforms to moderate pandemic-related misinformation, but the plaintiffs lacked standing since they could not demonstrate such harm.
6. Obscenity, “Harmful to Minors,” and Broadcast Content
The Court has repeatedly allowed for some regulation of obscene or “harmful” material, especially where minors are concerned, but it draws a firm distinction between unprotected obscenity and protected speech (e.g., Miller v. California, 1973; see also contemporary online age-verification laws adjudicated in recent years).
7. Other Notable Categories
• School Speech: Cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) protect students’ expression unless it causes substantial disruption, while Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood (above) permit some limitations in certain school contexts.
• Government Use of Private Intermediaries: National Rifle Association v. Vullo (2024) reinforced that officials may not use government power to retaliate against, punish, or coerce private entities (such as financial institutions or platforms) to suppress lawful speech.
Key Principles Established:
• The government generally cannot impose prior restraint on the press or publishers.
• Content regulation is most permissible for unprotected categories like obscenity and narrowly defined when designed for schools or protecting minors.
• 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: