[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-350465-105":53,"doc-detail-350465-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","free-speech-and-private-power-eugene-volokh","FREE SPEECH AND PRIVATE POWER - Eugene Volokh","","Explores what courts and legislatures should do regarding private restrictions on speech, focusing on how recent First Amendment cases address private power. Argues the question resists simple rules because private control over speech is both dangerous and valuable, leaving legal guidance unresolved. Surveys how Moody, Murthy, and Lindke complicate the restraint-versus-autonomy balance, and asks what judges, lawyers, legislators, and academics can do in the new case-driven landscape.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/free-speech-and-private-power-eugene-volokh/350465/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/free-speech-and-private-power-eugene-volokh/350465.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Margaret","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-16","2026-09-22",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":9},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What central question does the introduction address?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"What courts and legislatures should do about private restrictions on speech, and how recent cases treat that issue.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the author argue that no simple general rule has emerged?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Because private power over speech is both dangerous and valuable, and the legal system has not concluded either extreme should always apply.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does Moody affect the right of private entities to control speech?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The Moody majority reaffirms that private entities can exclude speech from their curated compilation into a single speech product, including news feeds, parades, and newspapers, and applies similar logic to social media platforms.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},350465,1792191483,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":9,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},137451207643,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","FREE SPEECH AND PRIVATE POWER  \nEugene Volokh∗  \nINTRODUCTION  \nWhat may and what should courts and legislatures do about private restrictions on speech? This has long been a critically significant and contested question, both before the Court and elsewhere. This Term’s cases—Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 1 Murthy v. Missouri,2 and, to a lesser degree, Lindke v. Freed3—all considered the issue, but left it mostly undecided.  \nProfessors Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier have written important recent works on this general question,[4](4 and their Lochner.com?5)[ and their](4 and their Lochner.com?5)[ Lochner.com?](4 and their Lochner.com?5)[5](4 and their Lochner.com?5)[ ](4 and their Lochner.com?5)[is yet another major contribution on their part. I](is yet another major contribution on their part. I)’[d](d) like to elaborate on some of the broader points that they discuss, and then turn to what the cases they focus on (Moody, Murthy, and Lindke) practically mean for the free speech/private power question going forward.  \nMy general theme is that the question has defied, and continues to defy, any simple generalization—perhaps unsurprisingly, given that private power over speech is both dangerous and valuable. Our legal system has not concluded either that all private entities should be constrained by free speech principles, or that all private entities should be free to restrain speech on their property (or by their employees or students) as they prefer. Perhaps this is a problem that is, to borrow the late Professor Fred Schauer’s words from a different First Amendment context,“too hard” for a comprehensive rule.6 At least, if a rule is indeed possible, it has yet to be discovered.  \nThe new cases add to this complexity, by largely acting cautiously and incrementally, perhaps because of the difficulty of the private power problem and not just because of the novelty of social media technology. I hope the analysis below helps us consider how private power questions  \n∗ Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law.  \n1 144 S. Ct. 2383 (2024) .  \n2 144 S. Ct. 1972 (2024) .  \n3 144 S. Ct. 756 (2024) .  \n4 Evelyn Douek, The Tug Between Private and Public Power Online, 61 DUQ. L. REV. 209 (2023); Genevieve Lakier, The Non–First Amendment Law of Freedom of Speech, 134 HARV. L. REV. 2299, 2316–42 (2021); Genevieve Lakier, The First Amendment’s Real Lochner Problem, 87  \nU. CHI. L. REV. 1241 (2020) .  \n5 Evelyn Douek & Genevieve Lakier, The Supreme Court, 2023 Term—Comment: Loch[ner.com?](ner.com?), 138 HARV. L. REV. 100 (2024) .  \n6 Frederick Schauer, Too Hard: Unconstitutional Conditions and the Chimera of Constitutional Consistency, 72 DENV. U. L. REV. 989, 989 (1995) .  \n44 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 138:43 might be considered in light of those cases. Where Douek and Lakier evaluate and critique the new precedents, I generally ask a complementary question: What might judges, lawyers, legislators, and academics do in the world those cases create?7  \nI. RESTRAINTS ON PRIVATE POWER FOLLOWING MOODY  \nA. Right to “Present[] a Curated Compilation of Speech”  \n1. The Majority.—To begin with, as Douek and Lakier note,8 the Moody majority strongly reaffirmed private entities’ power to exclude speech from their “curated compilation[s]”9 that make up “a single speech product,”10 such as news feeds, parades, and newspapers.11 That remains true even when the private entities have a great deal of influence over the public sphere.12  \nAnd this makes sense, partly because we rely on private entities to provide us as readers some valuable services that the First Amendment disables the government from providing. For instance, the government’s power to restrict misinformation is sharply limited. But we of course count on newspapers and other publishers to avoid misinforming their readers, including by screening ","cbCaitRpcfniHdY0","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitRpcfniHdY0","pdf",226561,23,"English","# Introduction\n## What courts and legislatures may do\n# Restraints on private power following Moody","[{\"question\":\"What central question does the introduction address?\",\"answer\":\"What courts and legislatures should do about private restrictions on speech, and how recent cases treat that issue.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author argue that no simple general rule has emerged?\",\"answer\":\"Because private power over speech is both dangerous and valuable, and the legal system has not concluded either extreme should always apply.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Moody affect the right of private entities to control speech?\",\"answer\":\"The Moody majority reaffirms that private entities can exclude speech from their curated compilation into a single speech product, including news feeds, parades, and newspapers, and applies similar logic to social media platforms.\"}]","FREE SPEECH AND PRIVATE POWER - Eugene Volokh | PDF",1790089176,8]