Can Social Media Delete Your Posts? Section 230 and Free Speech

In most situations, social media platforms can decide what content stays on their sites and what content gets removed. Courts have generally interpreted Section 230 and the First Amendment in ways that give private platforms broad authority to moderate posts, comments, videos, and accounts.

If you’re dealing with content removal issues or with damaging online content, an internet lawyer can help explain your rights and options.

What Is Section 230?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects information content providers from being treated as the responsible party or speaker of user-generated content.

The two most influential provisions of Section 230 provide:

1. Liability protections for third-party content
2. Protection for good-faith content moderation

The primary goal of Section 230 was to protect third-party online speech and create a “Good Samaritan” shield for online platforms doing content moderation they deem necessary.

Legal Background of Section 230

During the early days of the internet, lawmakers wanted to encourage growth. By passing the Communications Decency Act, they limited websites’ civil liability.

They also empowered internet platforms to engage in responsible moderation without fear of punishment for failing to remove harmful content. Several court cases prompted congressional action, and there were growing concerns that platforms would stop moderating content if doing so increased their legal liability.

As the internet expanded and social media rose in popularity, Section 230 was applied to these new online platforms. Each platform can develop its own rules and guidelines for content moderation.

However, Section 230 immunity isn’t all-encompassing. Online platforms are still accountable in certain situations. They can still be held liable under federal criminal law for sex trafficking, intellectual property (IP) claims, and content that the platform creates that contributes to illegal content.

How Courts Have Interpreted Section 230

Much of what people know about Section 230 today comes from court cases rather than the statute itself. While Congress wrote the law, judges spent decades deciding how it should apply to new technologies, websites, and social media platforms. Those decisions gradually expanded the scope of Section 230’s protections and helped establish the rules that govern online content today.

A key example is Zeran v. America Online, Inc., a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, often described as the most important Section 230 case. The 4th Circuit ruled that AOL could not be held responsible for content created by another person. This reasoning was later applied in many other cases involving message boards, review websites, social media platforms, and online marketplaces.

Zeran also limited the use of certain common law claims against platforms. In many situations, courts found that liability belonged with the person who created the content rather than the website that hosted it.

At the same time, courts recognized that platforms must be able to manage their own services. As a result, websites generally have broad authority to remove posts, suspend accounts, demonetize content, and enforce community standards. While some disputes have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, courts have often sided with platforms when users challenge moderation decisions.

Can Social Media Platforms Delete Posts They Disagree With?

Generally, yes, a social media platform can delete posts it disagrees with. A social media platform is a business or is owned by one. That company can establish and enforce content moderation policies.

It’s common for platforms to moderate content that violates policies against speech, harassment, misinformation, spam, or fraud. Many use algorithms to identify content that violates these policies.

There has been pushback to this approach. Concerns have been raised about the difference between content moderation and censorship. While moderation is important for public safety, overly aggressive moderation can slip into censorship. This can become problematic when the censorship is motivated by government interests. Then, private platform moderation is government-backed and could infringe on First Amendment rights.

Does the First Amendment Protect Your Posts?

There is a common misconception that the First Amendment protects all speech. However, this isn’t accurate. The First Amendment protects the right to express opinions and ideas without censorship or retaliation by the government, not by private entities.

Additionally, certain types of speech are not protected:

• Incitement: Speech intended, and likely, to produce imminent lawless action
• True threats: Serious threats of violence, which the speaker makes with at least a reckless disregard for whether it will be understood as a threat
• Obscenity and child pornography: Offensive material and sexual exploitation of minors
• Defamation: False statements harming reputation
• Fraud: Deceptive statements used for unlawful gain

Are There Any Limits on a Platform’s Ability To Remove Content?

Platforms must abide by the user agreement they created. When a user creates an account with the platform, they must agree to the Terms of Service. This is a contract between the platform and the user. Within that agreement, there are terms about how the platform will moderate user content. Acting outside of that scope would violate the contract.

Social media platforms must conform to federal and state laws. Many state legislatures continue to pursue efforts to regulate platform moderation. As state laws change, platforms must change their policies to comply with the new laws.

Platforms must consider the potential legal liability arising from removing third-party content. Possible legal claims include breach of contract, consumer protection violations, and constitutional rights violations from government involvement.

What If Someone Posts Harmful Content About You Online?

Internet users are accountable for what they post online and on their social media accounts. Posting harmful content about another person can lead to civil liability.

The first step someone should take when they find harmful content about themselves is to report it to the social media platform for violating the user policy everyone agrees to when they create an account. If the content infringes on your copyright, another option is to send the platform or website host a DMCA takedown notice.

If the posted content causes harm by stating incorrect facts about someone, it could lead to a defamation claim. Plaintiffs would need to show how the posted content is incorrect and caused damage. If the posted content contains private information, there could be a privacy-related claim.

Depending on the content posted and state law, criminal charges may be possible, and you can report the conduct to law enforcement. Many states have passed revenge porn, online sexual harassment, and doxxing laws.

Seek Legal Advice

A deleted post does not automatically mean your constitutional rights were violated. In most cases, social media companies have broad authority to decide what content appears on their platforms. Because internet law often involves overlapping issues such as privacy, defamation, harassment, and free speech, speaking with a lawyer can provide clarity before you take action.

Use the Super Lawyers directory to find an internet law attorney to assist with your situation.