When Congress first tried to regulate speech on the Internet, the Supreme Court had to decide what kind of medium it was. Was it like broadcast, which the government may regulate closely, or like a newspaper, which it may not? Four decisions over twenty-eight years, from 1997 to 2025, show how the Court has answered that question for sites, social media and age checks.
The Court's first look at the Internet
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), decided June 26, 1997. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 made it a crime to knowingly send "obscene or indecent" messages to anyone under 18, and to send or display to a minor any message that "depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." Justice Stevens, for the Court, held that these provisions abridge "the freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment.
The law was a content-based blanket restriction on speech, and the Court applied the most stringent review. Its terms were vague: "indecent" and "patently offensive" were undefined. Its burden on adult speech was "wholly unprecedented," because it suppressed "a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to send and receive." And the Government had not shown that less restrictive alternatives, such as software parents could use, would be less effective. The Court also declined to treat the Internet like radio or television, since it receives full First Amendment protection.
Social media as a public square
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), decided June 19, 2017. North Carolina made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members." Lester Packingham was indicted after he posted on Facebook about a positive experience in traffic court. Justice Kennedy, for the Court, held that the law "impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment."
The opinion is known for how it describes the Internet. A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen. Today, the Court wrote, the most important such place is "cyberspace," and "social media in particular." The law barred access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, "speaking and listening in the modern public square." It was, the Court said, "unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens."
Platforms have their own speech rights
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024), decided July 1, 2024. In 2021 Florida and Texas passed laws that limited how large social media companies can moderate content, meaning how they filter, prioritize and label what users post. Both also required platforms to explain their decisions to users. The industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association challenged the laws on their face.
Justice Kagan, for the Court, vacated the lower court decisions and sent the cases back, because neither the Eleventh nor the Fifth Circuit had done the proper analysis for a facial challenge. A facial challenge asks whether a law is unconstitutional across the board, not just as applied to one party. But the Court did not stop there. It explained that ordering a party to provide a forum for someone else's views "implicates the First Amendment if, though only if, the regulated party is engaged in its own expressive activity, which the mandated access would alter or disrupt." It said the Fifth Circuit's decision "rested on a serious misunderstanding of First Amendment precedent and principle." What platforms do with their feeds is, at least in part, expressive.
Age verification
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (2025), decided June 27, 2025. Texas required certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older. Representatives of the pornography industry sued, arguing that the law was unconstitutional on its face because it hindered adults' access to protected content. The Fifth Circuit applied no heightened scrutiny. Justice Thomas, for the Court, held that the law triggers, and survives, intermediate scrutiny, because it "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults." That is a lower bar than the strict scrutiny of Reno.
What the four cases show
The Court has treated the Internet as a medium with full First Amendment protection. It has not applied a single test to every law. Reno struck down a broad criminal ban under strict review. Packingham struck down a near-total bar on a class of users. Moody sent platform-moderation laws back for a narrower look. Paxton upheld an age-check law under intermediate review because it only incidentally burdens adults. Which standard applies is the first question in each new case.
Sources
- Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), 521 U.S. 844: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Packingham v. North Carolina (2017): Supreme Court of the United States
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024), 603 U.S. 707: Supreme Court of the United States
- Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (2025): Supreme Court of the United States
Updated November 2026.
This post was rewritten with AI (Claude) and reviewed by an editor before publication.
