LinkedIn censored a post about mRNA vaccine research without warning, proof, or appeal—and that should terrify every American who believes in the First Amendment.
At a Glance
- Big Tech shields itself from lawsuits under Section 230 while exercising unchecked editorial control
- Social media users are censored without due process or clear standards for appeal
- The Supreme Court returned key cases to lower courts to assess states’ rights to curb tech censorship
- States like Texas and Florida are pushing laws to stop viewpoint discrimination online
- Calls grow for reform of content moderation to protect speech rights in the digital age
The Post They Erased—and Why It Matters
When a link to Nicolas Hulscher’s controversial research on mRNA vaccines and fertility was posted on LinkedIn. Within hours, the platform deleted it without specifying what was false or providing a chance to appeal. This wasn’t a case of harassment, spam, or violence—it was a scientific discussion.
The decision was final. No explanation. No dialogue. No recourse.
This is what free speech looks like in 2025—digital companies acting as unelected arbiters of public discourse. And they’re doing it with legal immunity granted by Congress.
“The Modern Public Square” Is Now Closed
The Supreme Court has repeatedly described social media as “the modern public square.” Americans now speak, learn, debate, and organize online more than anywhere else. Yet that public square is privately owned by platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube—which means they can silence anyone they disagree with and face no consequences.
Watch a report: Big Tech and the Fight Over Free Speech
Protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, these companies cannot be sued for what users post—but they also get to decide what posts survive. The result? A system where you have fewer speech rights online than you do standing on a public sidewalk. They operate like publishers, but without liability.
States Push Back on Tech Tyranny
Texas and Florida have passed laws to curb Big Tech’s power to silence political viewpoints. Texas’s HB20 prohibits “viewpoint discrimination” by dominant social media platforms and demands transparency in how they enforce rules. Florida’s law bans platforms from de-platforming political candidates.
These efforts face ongoing court battles. The Supreme Court recently declined to rule outright, instead sending both laws back to lower courts to weigh First Amendment implications. As legal scholar Brendan Carr argues, it’s time for courts to recognize that government action—or inaction—can tilt debate by giving tech monopolies unchecked power over digital speech.
What Americans Deserve
This fight isn’t just about mRNA vaccines or politics—it’s about due process. If a platform deletes your content, you deserve:
- A clear explanation
- A right to appeal
- Human oversight of decisions
- Timely resolution
Above all, we need a hard conversation about whether companies that behave like publishers should still receive blanket immunity under Section 230.
Watch a report: Digital Speech and the Constitution
Reclaiming the Right to Speak
Free speech didn’t vanish when the internet arrived—it got rerouted. What used to be protected in the town square is now policed by opaque algorithms and unaccountable moderators. We need to demand reforms—from lawmakers, courts, and the platforms themselves—to bring transparency and fairness back to public dialogue.
The Constitution doesn’t end at the login screen. And if we don’t reclaim our rights now, we may not get the chance later.
