Running Head: FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Forum Doctrine and Social Media
An Analysis of Online Free Speech Protections
By Phil Ruhe
This research paper was written for a Communication & Policy course in summer 2018.
The author is a political science undergraduate major in the College of Arts and Sciences,
University of Nebraska at Omaha.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
2
Forum Doctrine and Social Media
An Analysis of Online Free Speech Protections
In the last ten years, the number of Americans using social media has jumped from 21 percent to
69 percent. For many of these Americans, checking social media is a daily habit (Pew Research
Center, 2018). Rebecca MacKinnon notes that “the Internet holds immense potential to help
citizens improve democratic governance” and offers a global platform for public discourse on
matters of sovereignty and consent.” (2012, Chapter 1) Does the First Amendment in turn
protect internet and social media speech because of their status as “modern public squares” and
“vast democratic forums?” (Packingham v. North Carolina 2017, p. 1737; Reno v. ACLU, 1997,
p. 868). One argument for this thesis is a recent court decision that President Trump’s
viewpoint-based blocking of Twitter users is unconstitutional, declaring immediate interactions
with @realDonaldTrump a public forum (Herrman & Savage, 2018). On the other hand,
companies retain extensive control over their platforms. YouTube demonetizes channels
(Farokhmanesh, 2018), Facebook is accused of content-based censorship (Robertson, 2018), and
social media companies increasingly act as arbiters of speech (Roose & Mozur, 2018). Most
importantly, “the First Amendment with its free speech guarantee only applies to the
government. So any private sector entity…is not constrained by constitutional free speech
guarantees” (Sanders, 2018, quoting Nadine Strossen). This research paper will seek to explore
to what extent the public forum doctrine applies to the internet in general, social media in
particular, and how the First Amendment is protected online.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
3
A Brief History of First Amendment Interpretation
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is arguably the most litigated constitutional issue
in the U.S. legal system. While the First Amendment is not supreme to other constitutional
protections, it holds a more revered place in the nation’s psyche. This is partially because the
First Amendment is nearly synonymous with the American values of individualism and
representative democracy. The First Amendment guarantees five (5) protections: religion,
speech, press, assembly, and petition (Olson, 2018, p. 25). The English natural right philosopher
John Locke and legal scholar William Blackstone heavily influenced the Founding Fathers
(Olson, 2018). Throughout the 19th Century, the nation wrestled with the extent of federal
power. In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Court expanded the application of First Amendment
protections to states through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Olson,
2018, p. 29). The two amendments “actively intersect with one another” and “broaden the scope
and potential power” of the First Amendment (Zick, 2017, pp. 817-818).
In the 20th Century, the U.S. Supreme Court also established a number of tests to
adjudicate the application of First Amendment rights and limitations. First, the Court applied the
bad tendency test in Patterson v. Colorado (1907) to determine constitutional limitations of First
Amendment protections (205 U.S. 454). Second, the Court added the clear and present danger
test in Schenck v. United States (1919) (Olson, 2018, p. 28). Third, the Court evolved the clear
and present danger test in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to limit First Amendment restrictions to
“imminent danger of incitement of illegal activity” based on the speaker and likelihood of action
(Olson, 2018, pp. 28-29). Fourth, the Court clarified in Spence v. Washington (1974) that
expressive conduct “intent[ed] to express a message” and for which there is a “likelihood” to be
“understood by a witness” is considered speech (Hopkins, 2018, p. 38). Fifth, in Texas v.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
4
Johnson (1989) and O’Brien v. United States (1967), the Court further defined that content-based
restrictions of expression must pass the strict scrutiny test and that content-neutral restrictions
must pass the intermediate scrutiny test, also called the O’Brien test (Hopkins, 2018, pp. 39-41).
Sixth, the Court, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) and Terminiello v. Chicago (1949),
denied First Amendment protections to so-called fighting words that “tend to incite an immediate
breach of the peace” and are “aimed directly at an individual.” (Hopkins, 2018, p. 43; citing from
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). However, the highest level of protected expression is
reserved to political speech that is “directly related to public debate” (Olson, 2018, p. 31).
Different First Amendment protections exist based on where the expression occurs.
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association (1983) stated that there are
three (3) types of fora: 1) traditional public fora (e.g. streets and parks); 2) limited public fora
(e.g. public meetings); and 3) nonpublic fora (e.g. public employee’s mailbox) (460 U.S. 37, 45-
50; Lipschultz, 2018, p. 241). Speakers in public fora receive the strongest First Amendment
protections because any content-based restrictions must pass the strict scrutiny test. Speakers in
limited public fora receive less protections, however restrictions must still pass the intermediate
scrutiny test (460 U.S. 37, 55; Kozlowski & Goodman, 2018, pp. 125-126; Lipschultz, 2018, p.
243). For such protections to be affected, “a speaker must seek access to public property or to
private property devoted to public use” (Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund,
1985, p. 801).
The advent of the Internet presented additional questions for First Amendment
interpretation: “should the Internet be regulated like broadcasting, or…enjoy the same First
Amendment freedoms as print?” (Olson, 2018, p. 32). In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Court
clarified that the factors necessitating broadcast regulation “are not present in cyberspace” (p.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
5
868). Consequently, the Internet “has been viewed as similar to print media with respect to the
First Amendment” (Lipschultz, 2018, p. 239). The Court has upheld the requirement that laws
governing Internet speech must be narrowly tailored and show compelling government interest in
subsequent cases (Lipschultz, 2018, p. 239). In United States v. American Library Association
(2003), the Court revisited the forum doctrine with respect to public library internet access. The
Court argued that the provision of internet service in a public library cannot be considered a
public forum or limited public forum, because “the doctrines surrounding traditional public
forums may not be extended to situations where such history is lacking” (p. 206).
Statute
Starting with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress enacted a number of laws curbing
online speech. The laws aimed at curbing children’s access to and the overall proliferation of
indecent and obscene online material. These include the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of
1998; Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996; and the Children’s Internet
Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000. All acts but CIPA were found to be unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court (Lipschultz, 2018, pp. 238-245). In United States v. American Library
Association (2003), the Court specifically rejected claims of libraries constituting public forums.
On April 11, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Allow States and Victims to
Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017. The act seeks to punish acts to “promote or facilitate
the prostitution of another person” using “interactive computer services” (Section 3). The
authors clarified that section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was “never intended to
provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and
websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
6
victims” (115 P.L. 164). The Act thereby places a content-based restriction on section 230’s
liability exemption.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorizes the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to regulate interstate communications, specifically broadband (i.e. Internet)
communications. Section 223 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the “making,
creation, solicitation” of “obscene or child pornography,” including the knowing transmission of
such material to recipients under 18 years of age (47 USCS § 223). At the same time, the Act
carved out a liability exemption called the “Good Samaritan” provision that treats “no provider
or user of an interactive computer service…as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider” (47 USCS § 230). Providers are given
latitude to “voluntarily…restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user
considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” (47 USCS § 230).
On the other hand, employers are given less authority to regulate the online speech of
their employees. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided in 2014 that employee
social media rules at Kroger’s grocery stores were “unduly burdensome, well beyond any
legitimate interest of the employer, and will have a tendency to chill legitimate…speech.”
(Kroger Co. of Michigan v. Granger, 2014, p. 11). The NLRB further clarified that “online
speech can be no more limiting than that of traditional written and oral speech” (p. 11).
The General Statutes of North Carolina (2018) declare that “it is unlawful for a sex
offender…to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that
the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages“
(§ 14-202.5). The statutes further assert that companies that do not pre-screen users or otherwise
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
7
make “reasonable efforts to prevent a sex offender…from accessing its Web site” may be civilly
liable (§ 14-202.5A). The following section outlines the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to this
statute in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017).
Recent Case
In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court reviewed a North Carolina law
barring sex offenders from accessing social networks to which minors have access. The Court’s
argument referenced Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) and Reno v. ACLU (1997). The
Court stated that the law did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because it was not narrowly
tailored. The North Carolina law “enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of the First
Amendment” by using “one broad stroke” that does not account for other, legitimate uses of
social media and thus “prevent[s] the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First
Amendment rights.” North Carolina “has not…met its burden to show that this sweeping law is
necessary or legitimate to serve” the purpose of “keeping convicted sex offenders away from
vulnerable children” (p. 1737). The Court stressed the importance of social network
communication in society, calling it a “modern public square” similar to the “quintessential
forum” of a park or street (p. 1733). Consequently, the Court urged “extreme caution” in
providing only “scant protection for access [to social networks]” (p. 1737).
In Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump (2018), the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the blocking of users from
interacting with President Donald Trump’s Twitter account. The Court adjudicated that such
practice violated the First Amendment rights of the blocked users. First, the Court established
that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account was used to “communicate and interact with the
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
8
public about his administration.” (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, 11) Second, the Court clarified
that such blocking prohibited the plaintiffs from 1) viewing and replying to the President’s
tweets, and 2) fully engaging in the resulting online debate (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, 11-
16). Third, the Court held that the plaintiff’s speech was protected under the First Amendment
and that the interactive space of President Trump’s Twitter account met the definition of a public
forum. A public forum must be “owned or controlled by the government,” can be “absent legal
ownership” by the government, but must be “public property or…private property dedicated to
public use” (pp. 38-43, citing from Perry Education Association v. Perry Educators’
Association, 1983). Whereas Twitter is a private business, the government controls the particular
forum on the social network to which the plaintiffs sought access – the ability to directly respond
to the President’s tweets in an interactive space (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, 44-57). The
Court concluded that “the blocking of the individual plaintiffs as a result of the political views
they have expressed is impermissible under the First Amendment” in a designated public forum
(2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87432, 63-70).
Review Analysis
Jackson (2014) explores the limits of First Amendment protections on social networks due to the
state action doctrine, associated dangers to expression, the widespread use of social networks in
public discourse, and potential solutions to protect freedom of expression on these platforms.
Social networks – Facebook in particular – aid “pre-existing, so called real-world social
relationships,” that extend public dialogue and other activities to the digital realm (Jackson,
2014, p. 123). Jackson (2014) asserts that as private, for-profit entities, social networks face
pressures to censor speech on their platforms. This may include cooperation with “repressive
and authoritarian regimes,” accommodation of cultural norms, broad legal compliance (e.g.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
9
national security and copyright), and controversial speech (e.g. political, religious, and criticism
of the company) (pp. 127-131). Jackson (2014) outlines three (3) problems with such censorship
on social networks: 1) lack of online and physical alternatives for free expression; 2) ability to
isolate and suppress particular expressions; and 3) extension of online censorship to real-world
censorship (pp. 132-233). Government-imposed restrictions to free speech on social network
would be subject to the Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny test (Hopkins, 2018, p. 40). Jackson
(2014) argues that, given the importance of social networks, free speech restrictions imposed by
social networks themselves should be considered “state action subject to First Amendment
scrutiny” (p. 134).
Jackson (2014) notes that the state (action) doctrine is understood to exclude private
conduct with exceptions created for public function and entwinement (pp. 139-142). The public
function exception introduced in Marsh v. Alabama (1946) curbs the government-like exercise of
power by private entities. Jackson (2014) argues that social networks are a large-scale public
space analogous to town squares regulated by government (public forum doctrine) and that
“social network websites may be privately owned, but they are sufficiently public…in nature to
be treated as state actors” and should therefore “be limited in some of the ways in which
governments are limited” (pp. 144-148). The entwinement exception introduced in Lugar v.
Edmonson Oil Co. (1982) curbs state-sanctioned private party conduct. Jackson acknowledges
that there is a more tenuous applicability of the entwinement doctrine with respect to social
networks but points to national security-related censorship and the protection of children from
sexual predators. However, Jackson (2014) offers several reasons why courts may be unwilling
to grant these exceptions and apply the state (action) doctrine to social networks: 1) preservation
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
10
of property rights; 2) the town square metaphor is mostly antiquated; and 3) access to
alternatives (p. 154).
Jackson (2014) in turn offers several alternatives to judicial action: 1) state constitutional
law; 2) complementary state and federal legislation; 3) and federal media access regulations by
the FCC (pp. 157-165). Neither alternative is particularly likely in Jackson’s interpretation.
Jackson (2014) concludes that social networks are both “open and tolerant venues for
expression” and “constitution-free zones where the threat of censorship… looms large” (p. 166).
Conclusion: Interpretation, Limitation, and Future Research
The contours of First Amendment protections for religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
have been and continue to be heavily debated. While the settings for speech may change – town
square and newspapers to social media and blogs – its continued protection ensures the “free
trade in ideas” (Abrams v. United States, 1919, p. 630).
This paper sought to explore the protection of online First Amendment protections via the
forum and state action doctrines. This issue is of increasing importance because “the Supreme
Court clearly views the Internet and now social media sites as at the core of First Amendment
protection by virtue of their place as modern-day public square.” However, “it is
unclear…whether the Court will extend this view beyond the reach of government state action in
a criminal law context” (Lipschultz, 2018, p. 253). Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
suggests that forum doctrine applies to non-narrowly tailored access restrictions that do not take
into account the public’s widespread use of social media communications. Knight First
Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump (2018) suggests that the state action
doctrine narrowly applies to some social media use by public officials. Absent an extension of
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
11
the public exemption function to the state action doctrine as introduced in Marsh v. Alabama
(1946) and advocated by Jackson (2014), “the lines between what is private and what is public”
remain “blurry” (Sanders, 2018). Social media platforms will continue to face the dichotomy of
being “open and tolerant venues for expression” and “constitution-free zones where the threat of
censorship… looms large” (Jackson, 2014, p. 166).
The conclusions reached in this research paper are limited by: 1) the rapid changes in
social media use and platform policies; 2) the lack of definitive legal precedence on the subject;
and 3) volatile public opinion about social media.
Social media’s increasing influence in public discourse, the workplace, and all aspects of
culture and civic life elevate the topic’s future research potential. Future research may explore
the technical aspects of online free speech. This may include the impact of algorithms and
artificial intelligence monitoring and policing of speech. Future research may further explore
corporate decision-making as it relates to terms of service and community guidelines. In
addition, research may examine state legislation and administrative law regulating online free
speech and social media platforms. Such legislation-focused research could further scrutinize
balancing considerations between the private property rights of social media companies and the
public interest as raised by Wheatley (2017). Finally, research may scrutinize workplace
limitations of online speech as adjudicated in Kroger Co. of Michigan v. Granger (2014).
In closing, online free speech protections are a continuously evolving topic that challenge
the traditional meanings of the forum and state action doctrines. The exact contours of social
media access and free speech will become more pronounced as the courts hear relevant cases in
the coming years.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
12
References
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, 115 P.L. 164 (April 11,
2018).
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985).
Farokhmanesh, M. (2018, June 4). YouTube is still restricting and demonetizing LGBT videos
— and adding anti-LGBT ads to some. The Verge. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demonetization-ads-
algorithm.
General Statutes of North Carolina, §§ 14-202.5-5A (2018).
Herrman, J. & Savage, C. (2018, May 23). Judge Rules President Can’t Block Twitter Foes. The
New York Times, p. B1.
Hopkins, W. W., (2018). Conduct and Speech (pp. 37-48), in Communication and the , 2018
Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
Jackson, B. F., (2014, Spring). ARTICLE: Censorship and Freedom of Expression in the Age of
Facebook. New Mexico Review, 44(1), 121-167.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
87432 (2018).
Kozlowski, D.V., & Goodman, M., (2018) Regulating Student Expression (pp. 119-146), in
Communication and the , 2018 Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, Alabama:
Vision Press.
Kroger Co. of Michigan v. Granger, NLRB, No. 07-CA-098566 (April 22, 2014).
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
13
Lipschultz, J. H., (2018). New Communication Technologies (pp. 223-255), in Communication
and the , 2018 Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, Alabama: Vision Press.
MacKinnon, R., (2012) Consent of the Networked. Available from
http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/book/digital-
media/9780465029297.
Olson, K. K., (2018). The First Amendment in Theory and Practice (pp. 23-36), in
Communication and the , 2018 Edition. (W. W. Hopkins, Ed.) Northport, Alabama:
Vision Press.
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct., 1730 (2017).
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907).
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983).
Pew Research Center (2018, February 5). Social Media Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/.
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
Robertson, A. (2018, April 26). Congress’ social media censorship hearing was a complete
disaster. The Verge. Retrieved from
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/26/17286232/congress-house-judiciary-hearing-
diamond-and-silk-social-media-censorship-disaster.
Romano, A. (2018, April 18). A new law intended to curb sex trafficking threatens the future of
the internet as we know it. Vox.com. Retrieved from
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-
freedom.
FORUM DOCTRINE AND SOCIAL MEDIA
14
Roose, K & Mozur, P. (2018, April 9). Hate Messages in Myanmar Get Long-Awaited
Response. The New York Times, p. B1.
Sanders, S. (2018, June 5). Free Speech vs. Hate Speech. It’s Been Minute with Sam Sanders.
Podcast retrieved from https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510317/its-been-a-minute-with-
sam-sanders
United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
United States Code Service, 47 USCS § 220-230.
Wheatley, T. (2017, August 4). Why social media is not a public forum. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-
local/wp/2017/08/04/why-social-media-is-not-a-public-forum.
Zick, T., (2017, September 18). ARTICLE: Rights Dynamism. University of Pennsylvania
Journal of Constitutional , 19, 791-859.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more