subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance government control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. . (7) In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court explained that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States generally prevents government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. Content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid. . (8) The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), stands for the proposition that speech can be suppressed only if the speech is intended, and is likely to produce, imminent lawless action. (9) Justice William Brennan, in his majority opinion for the Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), asserted that [i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . (10) Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion for the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, ___ U.S. ___ (2023), stated, The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. . (11) As evidenced in disclosures from various social media companies, Federal officials in recent years have sought to censor legal speech on platforms operated by those companies by using the power of their offices to influence what opinions, views, and other content that users of those platforms may disseminate. (12) White House officials and officials of Executive agencies sought to silence narratives on social media platforms on issues relating to the COVID–19 pandemic. (13) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention engaged with officials at Facebook and Twitter to request that certain posts be flagged as disinformation and held regular meetings with those companies to share instances of what government officials