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 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,