Private entities, while limiting content, cannot infringe the free speech rights of a person except if the limitation certifies as one of the exceptions.

The first exception is when an attempt to limit speech by a private entity involves a task solely for the government. It is known as the exclusive public function principle. This principle curbs desperate incidents where a private entity has acted in place of the state. Courts have often denied specification of the clauses of a news portal or social media app as a public duty earlier being solely performed by the government.

The second and third exceptions, which are related to each other, are complicated and interlinked. The entanglement exception pertains when an attempt to limit speech by a private firm is such that the government has remarkably intricate or tangled itself with the action by the firm. It takes place when the authority, property, and reputation of the government are beyond the attempt. Also, where there is proof of the apparent, notable aid of state officials.

The entwinement exception pertains to when an attempt by a private firm can get considered even though the measures were of the government itself (i.e., conjoining identities).

Types of Content-Based Limitations Allowed
Following are the types of content-based limitation that are allowed:

Defamation, cheating, perjury of government officials: Misinformation refers to incorrect information. False information regarding a public authority gets safeguarded from censorship as per the First Amendment, except if the information given is with the understanding of carelessness that it was a piece of incorrect information made with intent to harm.

Hate speech: The First Amendment safeguards even hate or communist speech from government censorship. However, speech favoring force is unguarded when it provokes or is likely to fuel impending lawless action. Also, a statement that is considered a provocation to riot, creating a clear and imminent danger, and disrupting peace does not get shielded under the First Amendment.

Who Can Restrict Free Speech?
The overextended concept of free speech as per the First Amendment is that its scope narrows to safeguarding against limitations on a speech made by the government.

The doctrine of the First Amendment itself only stops the legislation (i.e., U.S. Congress) from enacting laws that limit the freedom of speech. This safeguard extends to the states, and local governments, with the help of the state action principle and the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nevertheless, as per the state action principle, First Amendment limitations traditionally do not range to the private sector, such as people or private institutions.

Thus, a private individual or private entity, like any social media firm, cannot infringe the free speech rights of a person. Except if the private firm aiming to limit speech certifies for one of the three exceptions to the state action principle.

Private entities, while limiting content, cannot infringe the free speech rights of a person except if the limitation certifies as one of the exceptions.

The first exception is when an attempt to limit speech by a private entity involves a task solely for the government. It is known as the exclusive public function principle. This principle curbs desperate incidents where a private entity has acted in place of the state. Courts have often denied specification of the clauses of a news portal or social media app as a public duty earlier being solely performed by the government.

The second and third exceptions, which are related to each other, are complicated and interlinked. The entanglement exception pertains when an attempt to limit speech by a private firm is such that the government has remarkably intricate or tangled itself with the action by the firm. It takes place when the authority, property, and reputation of the government are beyond the attempt. Also, where there is proof of the apparent, notable aid of state officials.

The entwinement exception pertains to when an attempt by a private firm can get considered even though the measures were of the government itself (i.e., conjoining identities).

Types of Content-Based Limitations Allowed
Following are the types of content-based limitation that are allowed:

Defamation, cheating, perjury of government officials: Misinformation refers to incorrect information. False information regarding a public authority gets safeguarded from censorship as per the First Amendment, except if the information given is with the understanding of carelessness that it was a piece of incorrect information made with intent to harm.

Hate speech: The First Amendment safeguards even hate or communist speech from government censorship. However, speech favoring force is unguarded when it provokes or is likely to fuel impending lawless action. Also, a statement that is considered a provocation to riot, creating a clear and imminent danger, and disrupting peace does not get shielded under the First Amendment.

Private entities, while limiting content, cannot infringe the free speech rights of a person except if the limitation certifies as one of the exceptions.

The first exception is when an attempt to limit speech by a private entity involves a task solely for the government. It is known as the exclusive public function principle. This principle curbs desperate incidents where a private entity has acted in place of the state. Courts have often denied specification of the clauses of a news portal or social media app as a public duty earlier being solely performed by the government.

The second and third exceptions, which are related to each other, are complicated and interlinked. The entanglement exception pertains when an attempt to limit speech by a private firm is such that the government has remarkably intricate or tangled itself with the action by the firm. It takes place when the authority, property, and reputation of the government are beyond the attempt. Also, where there is proof of the apparent, notable aid of state officials.

The entwinement exception pertains to when an attempt by a private firm can get considered even though the measures were of the government itself (i.e., conjoining identities).

Types of Content-Based Limitations Allowed
Following are the types of content-based limitation that are allowed:

Defamation, cheating, perjury of government officials: Misinformation refers to incorrect information. False information regarding a public authority gets safeguarded from censorship as per the First Amendment, except if the information given is with the understanding of carelessness that it was a piece of incorrect information made with intent to harm.

Hate speech: The First Amendment safeguards even hate or communist speech from government censorship. However, speech favoring force is unguarded when it provokes or is likely to fuel impending lawless action. Also, a statement that is considered a provocation to riot, creating a clear and imminent danger, and disrupting peace does not get shielded under the First Amendment.