Petition to Restore Unlawfully Banned Social Media Content & Protect the First Amendment Right to Petition

Addressed To:

• The United States Congress

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• The United States Department of Justice (DOJ)

• The United States Supreme Court

• The Attorney General of Texas

• The Attorney General of United States

• The CEOs of TikTok, Instagram (Meta), Facebook (Meta), and X (Twitter)

We, the undersigned, exercise our right to petition for redress of grievances under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, demanding the immediate restoration of unlawfully banned social media content and the protection of the right to petition, associate, and express free speech on digital platforms.

Grievance:

Suppression of First Amendment Rights on Social Media

State Nationals Rock (SNR), an educational organization committed to teaching Americans about their constitutional rights, has been unlawfully censored by social media corporations, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook (Meta), and X (Twitter).

Over 1,000 educational videos created by SNR Directors Gwendolyn, Ashley, and Kenny were banned in a single instance, demonstrating a clear and coordinated suppression of speech.

These videos promoted civic education, constitutional rights, and lawful petitioning of government, all of which are fundamental protections under the First Amendment.

The right to petition is not conditional upon the medium through which it is exercised; whether a petition is solicited in person or via social media, it remains a constitutionally protected act.

Social media platforms serve as the modern public square, where civic discourse occurs. Courts have recognized these platforms as spaces where constitutional protections should apply, particularly regarding free speech and petitioning grievances.

The actions of TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X in censoring lawful, educational, and non-violent content constitute an unconstitutional infringement upon First Amendment rights by:

1. Suppressing the right to petition; preventing lawful petitions from being shared and signatures from being collected.

2. Violating freedom of speech; silencing voices advocating for legal and civic awareness.

3. Interfering with the right of association; blocking like-minded individuals from engaging in lawful discourse.

   
   

These platforms claim immunity under private company “terms and conditions”, yet courts have repeatedly ruled that private companies cannot infringe upon constitutional rights when operating as public forums or when coordinating with government agencies to suppress speech.

Legal Standing:

Constitutional & Case Law Precedents

We assert that these violations cannot be justified by private policies, as they directly contradict established constitutional protections:

1.  First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

“Congress shall make no law... 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 includes the right to petition using modern communication methods, including social media.

2.  Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

The Supreme Court ruled that privately owned spaces that function as public forums must uphold First Amendment protections. Social media platforms operate as the modern public square, meaning they cannot arbitrarily silence constitutional speech.

3.  Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017)

The Supreme Court ruled that social media is a “protected space” for free speech under the First Amendment. Any restriction on speech must meet strict constitutional scrutiny.

4.  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

The government (or its corporate proxies) cannot censor speech unless it incites imminent lawless action. SNR's educational videos do not promote violence, criminal activity, or false information—yet they were banned unjustly.

5.  PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)

Private property used for public expression (such as shopping malls and social media platforms) cannot arbitrarily restrict free speech.

These cases reinforce that social media companies, when operating as public forums, must comply with constitutional protections. Their actions constitute a direct violation of free speech, association, and petition rights.

Redress of Grievance:

Our Demands

1. Immediate Restoration of Banned Content

We demand that TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X reinstate all unlawfully removed educational videos/posts from State Nationals Rock and provide transparency in their decision-making process.

2. Public Acknowledgment of Wrongful Censorship

A formal statement from these platforms recognizing that State Nationals Rock’s videos were improperly censored and acknowledging the public right to petition government without interference.

3. Legislative Action to Protect Free Speech & Petitioning on Social Media

We call upon Congress, the FCC, FTC, and DOJ to enact and enforce regulations ensuring that: social media platforms cannot remove lawful petitioning efforts; content that does not promote violence, fraud, or crime cannot be arbitrarily banned; and platforms that operate as public forums must uphold constitutional standards.

4. An Injunction Against Future Censorship of Lawful Petitions

A federal injunction prohibiting social media platforms from removing constitutionally protected speech and petitioning efforts.

5. Legal Investigation into Social Media Collusion with Government Entities

If TikTok, Instagram, or Facebook coordinated with government agencies to censor content, they may be in violation of the First Amendment. The DOJ and attorneys general must investigate whether these actions constitute illegal government-endorsed suppression of speech.

Affirmation:

By signing below, I affirm and declare that I am a living man or woman of sound mind, acting of my own free will.

I have read and understand the contents of this petition, and I sign it knowingly, willingly, and without coercion.

I understand that this petition is a lawful expression of the People’s right to petition for redress of grievances, and I add my signature as evidence of support and standing for the actions, remedies, and demands stated above.

I reserve all of my unalienable rights, waive none, and stand in honor, peace, and truth.