Freedom of the Press and the Limits of Free Speech in Media and Marketing
Few principles are more deeply ingrained in American identity than freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Yet, in today’s social media–driven world, those freedoms are often misunderstood, especially by business leaders and marketers who operate at the intersection of public communication, persuasion, and commerce.
Scroll through any comment section or brand response thread, and you’ll find the phrase I have the right to say whatever I want! invoked as a kind of universal defense. But that’s not what the First Amendment guarantees. The First Amendment protects citizens from government suppression of speech, not from the social, professional, or legal consequences of what we say and certainly not from the accountability that comes with commercial communication.
Table of Contents
What the First Amendment Actually Protects
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
That one sentence has launched centuries of legal interpretation. Its essence is simple: the government cannot silence you because of your speech. It does not mean that you can say anything without consequence, nor does it shield speech from private repercussions, corporate policies, or consumer backlash.
In short, the First Amendment ensures freedom from government censorship, not freedom from accountability.
Social networks like X, Facebook, or YouTube are private platforms, not government entities. When they suspend accounts or remove posts, that’s not a First Amendment violation; it’s an exercise of private moderation. Similarly, employers can enforce codes of conduct, advertisers can withdraw sponsorships, and consumers can boycott brands based on the content of speech. None of that implicates the Constitution.
Because these companies are privately owned, their core obligation is not to guarantee universal free expression but to protect the interests of their shareholders, advertisers, and user communities. Maintaining a platform that fosters respectful interaction and minimizes reputational, legal, or regulatory risk is a business imperative, not an act of censorship.
In practice, this means moderating harmful or false content, enforcing community guidelines, and curating user experiences that sustain engagement and profitability. Just as a publisher decides what to print or an advertiser chooses where to place its brand, social networks must strike a balance between openness and stewardship, preserving a space that aligns with both their values and their bottom line.
Freedom of the Press in a Commercial Context
Freedom of the press was originally designed to ensure that journalists could report without government interference. Over time, it has expanded to protect publishers and corporate communicators as well. However, in the context of marketing, the courts distinguish between editorial expression and commercial speech.
Commercial speech encompasses advertisements, marketing claims, product packaging, and other forms of communication designed to drive sales. The Supreme Court recognizes that this kind of speech deserves less protection than political or artistic expression because it directly influences commerce and can easily mislead consumers.
That balance between freedom and accountability has evolved through a series of landmark Supreme Court cases that define how far marketing can go before it crosses the line.
Key Supreme Court Cases Shaping Marketing and the First Amendment
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
The Court ruled that purely commercial advertising was not protected by the First Amendment. A businessman promoting submarine tours could be prohibited from distributing handbills. For decades, this case has defined advertising as outside the scope of constitutional protection.
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
A turning point came when the Court ruled that a Virginia newspaper could not be punished for running an ad for legal abortion services in another state. This recognized that commercial information, when truthful and related to lawful activity, could carry both social and informational value.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
The Court struck down a state law banning pharmacists from advertising drug prices. Consumers, the justices reasoned, have a right to receive factual information about lawful products. Truthful advertising, therefore, contributes to public understanding and deserves constitutional protection.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
This case produced the most influential test for evaluating restrictions on commercial speech. Known as the Central Hudson Test, it asks four questions:
- Is the speech about lawful activity and not misleading?
- Does the government have a substantial interest in regulation?
- Does the regulation directly advance that interest?
- Is the regulation no more extensive than necessary?
This test remains the standard by which courts decide whether advertising restrictions are constitutional.
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (1985)
The Court allowed the government to require factual, uncontroversial disclosures, such as disclaimers or warnings, when necessary to prevent deception. This is why marketing messages often carry mandated statements such as results may vary or sponsored content.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
This case opened the door for professionals, such as lawyers, to advertise their services. The Court found that truthful advertising about lawful professional services was protected speech, overturning longstanding bans on professional solicitation.
Commercial Speech in the Digital Age
These precedents matter more than ever in a world where brand voices, influencer endorsements, and corporate accounts all blur the line between personal expression and advertising.
- Truth still matters. The First Amendment does not protect false or misleading commercial statements. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general regularly pursue companies for deceptive advertising—even when such claims are published on social media.
- Disclosures are not optional. Influencer partnerships, affiliate links, and sponsored posts must disclose material connections. These disclosures fall squarely under the Zauderer principle, which promotes factual transparency to protect consumers from deception.
- Private platforms are not bound by constitutional speech rules. A company’s freedom of expression does not guarantee access to someone else’s platform. If a brand violates platform advertising guidelines or community standards, its content can be restricted or removed without raising constitutional issues.
- Defamation, libel, and brand reputation remain legal boundaries. Businesses, executives, and marketers are accountable for false statements that damage others’ reputations. The First Amendment offers no shield for defamatory claims, trade libel, or fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Political speech by businesses is different. When a company speaks on matters of public concern, such as legislation or policy, it can invoke broader First Amendment protection. Yet that protection does not extend to false statements or deceptive lobbying.
Why Accountability Strengthens Marketing Integrity
Understanding the limits of free speech isn’t just about compliance; it’s about credibility. In a noisy information ecosystem, trust has become the most valuable currency for marketers. Accountability reinforces that trust. When brands communicate transparently, substantiate their claims, and correct misinformation, they model the integrity that consumers increasingly demand.
Freedom of the press enables businesses to express their perspectives, advocate for change, and engage in public discourse. But with that freedom comes responsibility: to ensure the information shared is truthful, evidence-based, and not misleading.
In this sense, the First Amendment should not be seen as a license to say anything, but as a responsibility to say what’s true, especially when speech has commercial power.
Freedom Requires Responsibility
The First Amendment protects speech from government suppression; it does not insulate us from consequence, criticism, or correction. In marketing and business communication, that distinction matters more than ever. Truthful expression advances both commerce and democracy. Misleading expression erodes both.
Politics, of course, has thoroughly muddied the waters. Elected officials frequently test the boundaries of speech by using their platforms to condemn or amplify certain voices, often blurring the line between political posturing and governmental overreach. Members of Congress can, and frequently do, misrepresent facts, attack media outlets, or publicly criticize private citizens without violating the First Amendment, because the amendment restricts the creation of laws abridging speech, not the expression of opinions by politicians themselves. While such rhetoric can have a chilling effect on open discourse, it remains legally permissible; proof that in America, the power to speak freely includes, for better or worse, the power to speak irresponsibly.
Marketers and business leaders should embrace their rights as communicators under the First Amendment—but also recognize that those rights are strongest when exercised responsibly. Freedom of the press, properly understood, is not an escape from accountability; it’s the foundation on which credibility is built.
Disclaimer: I’m a marketer, not your lawyer, so please don’t take this as legal advice. Until I researched this, I thought Central Hudson was an ’80s sitcom.
Related Martech Zone Content
