Last week, Senators **Ted Cruz** (R-TX) and **Ron Wyden** (D-OR) unveiled the **JAWBONE Act**, a significant piece of legislation targeting what is known as "jawboning." This practice involves government entities subtly or overtly pressuring private companies to suppress speech protected by the First Amendment. ### Understanding "Jawboning" "Jawboning" occurs when government officials or agencies coerce private companies to remove content or cancel accounts, often without public knowledge. This raises serious free speech concerns, akin to unauthorized surveillance of private communications. The **JAWBONE Act** aims to provide a new legal avenue for individuals to challenge such government actions in federal court, supplementing existing First Amendment protections. ### Real-World Implications: The ICEBlock Case The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** highlights the case of **Joshua Aaron**, creator of the **ICEBlock** app, as a prime example of alleged government coercion. In June 2025, federal officials reportedly threatened to investigate and prosecute Aaron. By October 2025, the U.S. Attorney General allegedly demanded **Apple** remove **ICEBlock** from its App Store, a demand the company reportedly complied with. The **EFF** contends that this governmental pressure violated Aaron's First Amendment rights. In response, the **EFF** has filed a **Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)** lawsuit against the government agencies involved. This lawsuit seeks to uncover communications between the government and platforms like **Apple**, **Google**, and **Meta** that may have led to the removal of lawful speech. ### Balancing Free Speech and Legitimate Communication While the **JAWBONE Act** addresses critical free speech concerns, it acknowledges the complexity of the issue. Not all government-platform communications are unconstitutional coercion. Legitimate information-sharing between government agencies and private actors is crucial for a safer internet and nation. The legislation aims to strike a balance, preventing overreach without chilling valuable, good-faith engagement. ### Platforms' Own First Amendment Rights The **EFF** also emphasizes that social media platforms and other internet intermediaries possess their own First Amendment rights to moderate user speech. These platforms are not considered "state actors" and are not obligated to host all user content. This position has been articulated by the **EFF** in numerous legal filings, including an amicus brief in 2018 and subsequent cases. The Supreme Court, in the **Netchoice** cases, reaffirmed these services' right to curate and edit user speech, independent of government preferences. This right is vital to prevent governments from dictating platform content based on their own agendas. ### Looking Forward The **EFF** commends Senators **Cruz** and **Wyden** for their initiative and expresses its commitment to collaborating with Congress on this bipartisan bill. The goal is to ensure the **JAWBONE Act** effectively provides additional protections for individuals' freedom of expression while maintaining a healthy balance for online platforms.