UC Law Journal
Abstract
With large and powerful social media companies operating as worldwide speech regulators, it is unsurprising that governments have attempted to not only regulate how these companies address platform speech but also pressure them to deliver preferred speech outcomes. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided two cases addressing both themes in the U.S. context. In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court explained how legislation regulating private platform curation of usergenerated content runs afoul of First Amendment protections. And, in Murthy v. Missouri, the Court appeared to erect significant hurdles to challenging alleged governmental coercion of such platforms. These cases have left many wondering what can be done to achieve the legitimate societal aim of promoting broad and fair protections for user-generated speech on large social media platforms while addressing illicit governmental interference with such discourse. This Essay seeks to spur a dialogue about the potential for global corporate responsibility and free expression standards to provide a way forward. Under such standards, companies would apply a principled free expression framework in curating platform speech as well as proactively resist illicit governmental pressure. That said, as corporate adoption of these standards remains voluntary, this Essay urges a range of stakeholders to seize this norm-building moment to encourage platform adoption of these global standards or otherwise risk cementing unprincipled approaches to online speech.
Recommended Citation
Evelyn M. Aswad,
The First Amendment, Global Corporate Responsibility Standards, & the Quest for Online “Speech Nirvana”,
76 UC Law SF L.J. 1659
(2025).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol76/iss6/6