This article appeared in Knife Magazine April 2025.
Know Your Knife Laws – Knives and Social Media Censorship
By Anthony Sculimbrene, Attorney and Knife Expert
The law and knives intersect in lots of unexpected ways. While I typically focus on Second Amendment Rights cases, the First Amendment warrants some attention, too. The reason is simple–the lines between commerce, media, and social media blur in our interconnected world. This melding becomes problematic when social media companies ban or shadow-ban knife content. What legal issues does this conduct give rise to, and what can makers and companies do in response to these actions?
Let’s start at the beginning–the First Amendment. Here is the language of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This makes clear something that many people misunderstand regarding free speech. Free speech, as contained in the First Amendment, does not allow you to do anything. Instead, the First Amendment restricts the federal government’s right to limit what people say. As a result, your right to free speech isn’t violated when you are fired from your private sector job for posting something offensive on Facebook, nor is your right to free speech violated when a social media platform, like Instagram, limits the reach of your posts (aka shadow bans them) or takes them down entirely. Because neither of these actions has anything to do with the government, neither of them has anything to do with a person’s freedom of speech.
There is one small exception to this rule. If you post on the social media account of a government official acting in their capacity as a government official on social media, that person may not be able to ban your comment or bar you from following them. For example, if the President uses his POTUS account to post something and you post a reply, the President is probably not allowed to delete your comment.
The next question is, what happens if the government attempts to force social media platforms to change their policies on censorship? This is a much more complex area of law. Here is the reason why–social media companies have their own First Amendment rights. While a law might be an attempt to provide equal visibility for different points of view, ultimately, any government action mandating or barring speech acts comes within the ambit of the First Amendment. In the past, such attempts have been received exceptionally poorly by courts and are almost universally struck down as unconstitutional. In a pragmatic sense, everyone on both sides of the issue should be skeptical of this kind of government action. If it is allowed now for a cause you like, it will likely be allowed in the future for one you don’t.
Two successive cases show why this kind of government action is problematic. In NetChoice LLC v. Paxton, the 5th Circuit held that Texas’s attempt to compel social media companies to change their censorship policies violated the First Amendment. In Moody v. NetChoice LLC, the 11th Circuit, on the exact same facts, found the exact opposite to be true. Notably, both courts tend to be conservative, though the 5th Circuit is almost always seen as the most conservative of the Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled in the consolidated appeal that both cases were wrongly decided and remanded them for further proceedings. That is, it did not decide the substantive issue but instead kicked the cases back to the lower courts for procedural problems.
Thus, this conundrum remains unresolved. Is it government censorship to order a private company not to censor content that contrasts with its company values? I think the answer is probably going to be yes. And I think that is how it should be. While my preferences and values don’t change much, the winds of politics are always blowing. If the government could force social media companies to allow knife content it finds objectionable, then it could also do so on other issues I dislike later. I would not, for instance, want a government law that required social media companies to allow posts promoting hate crimes, but if the door is open by laws allowing knife content, there is no way to close them in the future.
This leaves a lot of folks in a lurch. What is a small custom maker or production company to do when a social media platform bans or shadow-bans its content? The answers are all pretty unsatisfactory. If you happen to be a billionaire, you can always buy one of these social media platforms and do whatever you want. If you happen to be a coder, you can make your own. But for the rest of us, it is probably just a slow fight using the company’s internal process and rules for protesting restrictions that hold the greatest possibility for success in the short term. That’s a pretty crappy forum for redress, but that is all the law allows for as of right now.
There is something you can do now! The Federal Trade Commission recently launched an inquiry on technology censorship. They are requesting public comment on how tech users have been banned, shadow banned, or otherwise censored. You have until May 21, 2025, to submit a comment at this link https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2025-0023/document. You can comment individually, as an employee, or on behalf of your business. All comments can be seen publicly. If you are concerned about your identity being revealed, there is an anonymous option.
Don’t wait! Submit your comments now and let your concerns be heard.
The American Knife & Tool Institute has been following and working on this issue since 2022, when we launched a survey to evaluate the extent of the issues. Stay updated on our website, AKTI.org, where you can find valuable information on knife laws and our initiatives to repeal and change knife restrictions.