Keep the Internet Free and Fair

By Paul Lekas

Today, the internet is a dynamic forum for commerce, communication, and the free exchange of ideas. This vibrant ecosystem did not emerge by accident. It was built on a framework explicitly designed to protect free speech and prevent government actors from silencing politically disfavored content, tenets that are essential for a free and open internet.

The Senate Commerce Committee recently held a hearing to examine threats to free speech online, including "jawboning." Jawboning refers to government officials using informal pressure, public threats, and back-channel requests to coerce platforms into removing constitutionally protected speech that they disfavor. When an official "suggests" a platform remove a post or other content, the implicit threat of regulatory action or investigation creates a powerful chilling effect. This censorship by proxy leads platforms to remove content not because it violates their policies, but because they fear government retaliation, a fact that presents clear risks to Americans' First Amendment protections.

When government actors can sidestep constitutional limits and outsource censorship through jawboning, the free and open internet is put at risk. The stakes are not theoretical. History shows that even subtle government pressure can chill debate, silence minority viewpoints, and erode trust in our institutions. Jawboning is not a partisan issue. Groups from across the political spectrum, including religious groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, and Second Amendment advocates, have warned that pressure from government officials is a dangerous tool to silence legitimate speech.

Of course, government officials should be free to share information, whether on election security, public health, or foreign interference. But there is a crucial difference between offering facts and issuing veiled threats. When conversations cross the line from persuasion to coercion, courts must hold the government accountable. And they must do so in a way that preserves the editorial independence of private platforms. Companies have their own First Amendment rights to decide what content they carry, and conflating those choices with government action would weaken free speech protections, not strengthen them.

An open internet depends on keeping those constitutional boundaries intact. As lawmakers examine jawboning, they should reaffirm those principles. Protecting free expression online means drawing a bright line between legitimate government communication and coercive interference. The future of a free and open internet experience for Americans depends on it.

To preserve the open internet, policymakers must commit to foundational principles designed to support free speech online. We must defend the First Amendment rights of online platforms, protect the vital legal framework of Section 230, and unequivocally reject any attempts by the government to informally dictate what speech is acceptable online. The future of the digital public square depends on it.