Close this menu
Contact Us
Content Moderation
Posted 07/16/2025  |  Media Hits and Press Statements

Proposed Missouri Rule Would Run Roughshod Over Free Speech Online

Krista Chavez
Director of Communications

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Today, NetChoice submitted comments to the Missouri Attorney General on the proposed rulemaking that would give the government control over protected speech online, running “roughshod” over the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in NetChoice v. Moody. 

“Missouri’s proposed rule that tries to regulate protected online speech offends Americans’ rights in multiple ways. It allows the government to control the content digital services host on their websites, directly contradicting the Supreme Court and violating the First Amendment,” said Patrick Hedger, NetChoice Director of Policy. “The rule also forces online businesses to allow actors outside their companies to invade their sites and imposes unworkable compliance burdens that would fundamentally break the internet as we know it. We urge the Attorney General to drop this destructive, unconstitutional proposal that would create an impossible digital mess for Americans and their businesses.”

You can read NetChoice’s comment here. 

Our Key Arguments on Missouri’s proposed rule 15 CSR 60-19:

  1. Violates the First Amendment: The rule violates websites’ First Amendment rights to editorial control and free speech, as the Supreme Court outlined in NetChoice v. Moody. It would force companies to allow third-party content moderators to disseminate their own curated speech, stripping websites of their ability to determine their company’s own standards and decline objectionable content.
  2. Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property: The rule constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property by requiring regulated websites to grant third-party moderators the ability to invade their property without just compensation.
  3. Unworkable Compliance Burdens: The rule imposes significant compliance burdens, demanding transformational changes that are not feasible. Websites would need to fundamentally alter their operations to accommodate numerous third-party content moderators, requiring substantial changes to code and infrastructure, breaking today’s internet.
  4. Maintenance Difficulties: Maintaining systems for third-party access would be increasingly difficult as the government forces companies to accommodate more.
  5. Unaddressed Issues: The rule fails to address practicalities like safety and privacy for users and how compliance with other laws (such as data privacy, child protection) would be affected by third-party moderation choices.

A few relevant quotes from the Supreme Court’s NetChoice decision:

  • “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”
  • “A State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.”
  • “The government may not, in supposed pursuit of better expressive balance, alter a private speaker’s own editorial choices about the mix of speech it wants to convey.”

Please contact press@netchoice.org with inquiries.