The JAWBONE Act: Combating Government Pressure on Online Speech

The JAWBONE Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden to prevent government officials from coercing private companies into censoring lawful, First-Amendment-protected speech. The bill creates a federal cause of action against officials who pressure broadcasters, interactive computer services, or AI providers to take action against protected expression, while establishing a transparency system for government communications regarding user speech.

Understanding Jawboning and its Legal Implications

Jawboning occurs when government officials use pressure or threats to compel private companies to censor speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. Because these actions often happen behind the scenes, the public and the affected users are frequently unaware of the government's role in the deletion of posts or account cancellations.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this practice raises serious free speech concerns, as it effectively allows the government to bypass First Amendment restrictions by using private intermediaries as proxies for censorship.

Case Study: The ICEBlock App

The impact of government coercion is illustrated by the case of Joshua Aaron, the creator of ICEBlock, an app designed to report immigration enforcement activity. In June 2025, federal officials threatened to investigate and prosecute Aaron. By October 2025, the U.S. Attorney General demanded that Apple remove the app from the App Store, and Apple complied.

EFF represents Aaron and has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the government agencies involved to disclose communications between the government and platforms like Apple, Google, and Meta that led to the removal of lawful speech.

Balancing Government Communication and Platform Rights

While the JAWBONE Act targets coercion, it does not seek to ban all communication between the government and private platforms. The EFF notes that legitimate, good-faith information-sharing between government agencies and platforms is necessary for a healthy internet and should not be criminalized.

Furthermore, the legislation acknowledges a critical distinction: social media platforms and AI providers are not "state actors." They maintain their own First Amendment rights to curate and moderate content according to their own terms of service and values. The Supreme Court's decisions in the Netchoice cases reaffirmed that these services have the right to edit user speech regardless of whether it aligns with the government's position.

Community Perspectives and Debates

Public discussion surrounding the bill has highlighted several key tensions in the content moderation landscape:

  • The Misinformation Dilemma: Some argue that the government must have a way to urge platforms to remove dangerous misinformation, such as public health crises (e.g., vaccination misinformation), where relying solely on factual counter-information may be not enough.
  • The Incentive Gap: There is a concern that private platforms are not "correctly incentivized arbiters of speech," as their business models often prioritize engagement and addictive content over a healthy information economy.
  • Political Skepticism: Some observers express skepticism regarding the motives of the sponsors, questioning whether the bill will be applied equitably across different political spectrums or if it will only protect specific types of misinformation.

"Giving governments more power is ... oof... a bad idea. We need more genuine efforts to ensure a healthier content environment that works for society."

Ultimately, the JAWBONE Act represents an attempt to legalise the boundary between legitimate government engagement and unconstitutional coercion of private intermediaries.

Sources