What Is Censorship — and Does the First Amendment Allow It?

A black and white photo of a redacted document, with black blocks covering the lines of text

Sep. 5, 2025

Key takeaways:

Censorship is an act of suppressing speech or expression.
The First Amendment protects our free expression rights from government interference.
Government censorship may violate the First Amendment, particularly if it involves viewpoint discrimination or prior restraint.
The First Amendment does not protect a few, well-defined categories of harmful speech — such as true threats, incitement and defamation.
Censorship by private individuals and companies, such as social media platforms, as well as self-censorship, may occur without triggering First Amendment concerns.

The First Amendment prevents the government from infringing on people’s right to free expression. In particular, the freedoms of speech and the press protect the right to speak, write and publish, free from government interference or suppression.

Often, such suppression of speech is referred to as “censorship.”

This article explains the concept of censorship and when and how the First Amendment comes into play in various scenarios, including government censorship, censorship in private environments and self-censorship.

What is censorship?

Censorship is an act of suppressing speech or expression. This may include punishing or burdening speech, or any action that would prevent a reasonable person from engaging in that speech again.

There is no single accepted definition of censorship — legal or otherwise. People use the term to refer to a range of scenarios where they feel as though their right to express themselves has been limited, such as:

A publishing company requires cuts to a manuscript.
A radio station bleeps a musician’s song lyrics.
A private venue cancels a controversial performer’s show.
The government redacts classified information in a public record.
A company fires an employee for a controversial social media post.

These are all instances of what may be viewed as censorship, but whether they raise First Amendment legal concerns is a separate question that depends on who’s doing the censoring and what’s being censored.

Censorship in private environments

There is no First Amendment-based legal protection when private people, companies and platforms restrict or otherwise make decisions about what speech or expression to publish, air or allow. Private people and companies are not bound by the First Amendment’s requirement to protect free speech.

Instead, private companies, publishers and platforms have their own free speech rights — including the right not to speak.

This is why newspapers, TV and radio stations, book publishers, social media platforms, private employers, private event venues and any other private company can make their own decisions about what speech to broadcast, support, publish or provide a platform. They can make these decisions for editorial, business or financial reasons — or for just about any other reason.

For example, a private venue is free to cancel a controversial performer’s show (within any agreed upon conditions in case of a contract between the venue and the performer). The performer does not have a First Amendment free speech claim.

Similarly, a private company can fire an employee for making a social media post the company disagrees with or that causes controversy (again, within the limits of an employment contract, if there is one). In very specific cases, if the employee was trying to organize fellow employees to improve working conditions, labor laws likely protect the employee from being fired for that speech. However, there is no First Amendment-based free speech claim in these cases.

Social media platforms can also remove and curate the content people post without violating those users’ First Amendment rights, and the government (in the vast majority of cases) cannot tell social media sites how to moderate content. A social media user whose post or account is removed for violating a platform’s terms of use does not have a First Amendment free speech claim.

Self-censorship

Self-censorship is a term used to describe when someone chooses not to speak, typically due to feeling pressure to stay silent. The First Amendment protects the right to refrain from speaking, and there are many reasons someone might self-censor: from not swearing, discussing politics at Thanksgiving dinner, or avoiding divisive topics at work, to not posting on social media for fear of tension with friends.

According to Freedom Forum’s 2024 “Where America Stands” survey, more than 70% of Americans say they don’t feel they can speak freely about controversial topics like religion, gender or race for fear of job loss, a violent response, tensions with friends and family, or perceptions about them.

Self-censorship becomes a First Amendment issue when people refrain from expression for fear of violating an unclear government law or policy, also known as a “chilling effect.”

Government censorship

It is when the government — local, state or federal — takes action to censor speech that it may become a First Amendment issue. Because the First Amendment protects the rights of free speech and the press (as well as religion, assembly and petition), most government censorship directed at the content or message being expressed is a First Amendment violation. However, there are times when the government may limit speech.

Does the First Amendment ever allow government censorship to occur?

Yes, the First Amendment sometimes allows government censorship — but it depends on what’s being censored.

Most government censorship violates the First Amendment, except in certain cases.

Government censorship that does not violate the First Amendment

Government censorship is justified under particular circumstances.

For instance, the government can censor certain speech that falls into specifically defined legal categories that courts have ruled are unprotected by the First Amendment, including:

Child sexual abuse material
Defamation
Fighting words
Incitement to imminent lawless action
Obscenity
Perjury
Solicitation to commit a crime
True threats

The government may also censor speech if it can show a compelling interest, such as public safety or national security, in censoring the speech. It must also demonstrate it can only achieve this interest through the particular restriction or punishment being imposed.

Finally, the government may censor some speech when the speaker is someone whose rights can traditionally be limited in certain ways, including:

What about when the government directs private censorship?

In very limited cases, the government can require a private company to allow or to limit speech in a certain way without violating the First Amendment. For example, a musician’s explicit song lyrics may be bleeped on the radio because of government requirements.

The Federal Communications Commission requires companies that use the limited number of broadcast radio and television stations to follow FCC rules regulating “indecent” speech. Companies using these channels must refrain from broadcasting “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities” during certain hours. Similarly, broadcast stations that allow election-related advertisements cannot censor those ads or limit which ones they broadcast.

Generally, however, government pressure that coerces or bullies private people or companies to censor their own protected speech violates the First Amendment.

Government censorship that violates the First Amendment

There are times when government censorship crosses the line. The following examples of censorship would typically violate the First Amendment.

Viewpoint discrimination

One type of government censorship courts have never upheld as consistent with the First Amendment is viewpoint discrimination.

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government treats protected speech or expression differently based on the viewpoint, message or perspective of the speaker — including by censoring speech with one message but allowing speech with a different message.

Examples of viewpoint discrimination to censor certain speech in violation of the First Amendment include:

Creating a policy or law that limits only speech with a certain disfavored political perspective while allowing speech with a different, favored perspective.
Creating a policy or law to limit speech, with special exceptions for certain types of speech to be more favored or less restricted than other types of speech.
Enforcing a policy or law only for a certain viewpoint or group.

Prior restraint

Another type of government censorship courts have almost always ruled as a First Amendment violation is prior restraint. Prior restraint occurs when the government restricts speech before it happens, whether by requiring government review or approval before speech can be made public or by telling a speaker their planned speech cannot be made public.

Except in very rare cases — for example, those involving direct, credible threats to national security if information were to be released — prior restraint is a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.

Jawboning

Courts have found the government typically violates the First Amendment when it engages in “jawboning”: pressuring one party to censor another party’s protected speech — such as urging one company not to do business with another unless that second company self-censors.

Chilling effect

When a law is vague or overly broad, people may self-censor to avoid an unclear prohibition, even if their speech or expression is protected. This is called a chilling effect and may result in self-censorship or other forms of censorship. These kinds of speech-chilling laws or policies likely violate the First Amendment.

The bottom line on censorship and the First Amendment

While censorship is a topic that often provokes discussion and debate, it doesn’t always involve the First Amendment.

Private employers or social media platforms can regulate speech without violating the First Amendment. People may also self-censor for social or professional reasons — though when self-censorship results from vague or overbroad laws that cause fear of punishment, it can amount to violation of free speech rights.

Censorship only raises First Amendment questions when the government censors protected speech.

Karen Hansen is a content writer at Freedom Forum. She can be reached at [email protected].

This article was compiled with contributions from Freedom Forum experts, including Vice President and First Amendment Expert Kevin Goldberg and First Amendment Specialist Alex Morey.