Tracing the Speech Regulation Patterns of 2025

Ashkhen Kazaryan was a Fall 2024 visiting fellow at the Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy.

The year ahead promises to be pivotal for the future of free speech in the United States. As legislators, courts, and regulators wrestle with how to balance protecting users and maintaining free expression in the digital era, the risk of overreach is higher than ever. Each of the key battles looming in 2025 has the potential to reshape the Internet as we know it.

First, the debate over youth safety will dominate the policy conversation both at the federal and state levels. In Washington, DC, lawmakers will likely revisit the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). This bill would require online platforms to implement measures to prevent and mitigate harms to minors through introducing a duty of care standard enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While supporters champion KOSA as a safeguard for minors navigating the digital world, critics warn of its significant risks and unintended consequences, which include threats to free expression.

Other unintended consequences could arise from the bill's vague definitions, which could push platforms to over-moderate, resulting in cautious policies that restrict discussions on important and sensitive topics. This would disproportionately affect marginalized groups and limit access to resources on issues like mental health, addiction, bullying, and eating disorders, topics that are critical for youth and vulnerable communities. Critics also insist that KOSA erects barriers to lawful content, cutting minors off from supportive online communities and vital resources, with LGBTQ+ youth especially impacted in their search for understanding and connection.

Similar policy debates have been unfolding in many state capitals, with an increasing number of states enacting laws targeting both platform design and age verification. For example, California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act mandates that platforms implement extensive privacy settings and tailor content moderation to safeguard minors, but critics argue it forces platforms to shut down conversations on sensitive topics. In the same vein, age verification laws in Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah require platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent in order to open social media accounts. Age verification measures erode the anonymity that has been essential for civic discourse online and lay the groundwork for further government surveillance that chills free expression and puts marginalized groups, activists, and dissidents at risk. Courts in several states have already blocked the enforcement of these laws, citing their constitutional flaws, but as new state regulation attempts emerge, these legal battles are likely to continue.

Next, the rise of artificial intelligence introduces another dimension in the battle over online speech, with California leading the effort to regulate AI-generated content. California’s recent law AB2839 prohibits the distribution of materially deceptive election communications, including those generated by AI, that misrepresent candidates, officials, or election-related systems in ways that harm reputations, influence electoral outcomes, or undermine confidence in elections. A federal court already put this law on hold, finding that it “attempts to sterilize electoral content and would ‘open the door for the state to use its power for political ends.’”

The broader trend moving into 2025 is the increasing reliance on state-level laws to address what Congress has failed to regulate at the federal level. While this patchwork approach reflects the genuine frustrations of state policymakers, it also creates significant challenges for platforms trying to navigate inconsistent rules across the country. Ironically, such laws often entrench the incumbent tech giants they aim to rein in, as smaller companies lack the resources to implement complex compliance systems.

State-level speech laws will also continue to shape the legal landscape. The first cases from this era, the challenge to Texas and Florida’s controversial social media laws, are working their way through the judicial system back to the Supreme Court. How these cases unfold in this second round will shape how states approach and draft their bills regulating speech on the Internet. Adding to this, at the start of the year the Court heard oral argument on another pivotal case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which centers on a Texas law’s (HB1181) efforts to regulate adult content through strict age verification provisions and mandatory health warnings. The Free Speech Coalition, represented by the ACLU and other counsel, argued that the law unconstitutionally infringes on adults’ First Amendment rights by imposing invasive age verification requirements that chill free expression and undermine online anonymity. They further contend that the Appeals Court's decision to uphold the law disregarded established legal precedent that found similar laws unconstitutional, given that there were less restrictive alternatives available to protect minors.

Adding another layer of complexity, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, has signaled an interest in reforming Section 230, the foundational law that, according to Jeff Kosseff, “created the Internet.” While critics across the political spectrum have targeted Section 230, attempts to alter it risk destabilizing the very framework that allows the Internet to function as an open forum for speech. The FCC’s potential involvement also raises concerns about government overreach, with regulators seeking to impose mandates on how platforms moderate content by only allowing “good faith” moderation. Such efforts could open the door to politicized interference in private companies' editorial decisions and chill speech in spaces vital to the marketplace of ideas.

As we trace these policy and legal battles, a troubling pattern emerges - lawmakers and regulators proposing sweeping rules to address specific concerns without considering that they will undermine the foundational principles of free speech and an open internet. The First Amendment does not promise a perfect discourse, which doesn’t exist - it promises a free one. It allows ideas to flourish, dissent to thrive, and marginalized voices to be heard.

As 2025 takes shape, the imperative for those who value free expression is clear - to push back against overreach. The Internet’s strength lies in its diversity and dynamism, which will be at risk if speech becomes subject to the whims of government regulation.