State Senate: Republican majority
State House: Republican majority
Governor: Mike Parson (R)
Attorney General: Andrew Bailey (R)
Summary:
Solid Republican Missouri has considered many pieces of speech-related legislation similar to other states, while also introducing some unique bills, including bills to prohibit public institutions of higher education that receive state funds to censor a speaker based solely on the speaker’s particular political persuasion, party affiliation, or viewpoint or ideology; prohibit the state, any agency, and any political subdivision from using public funds to conduct business with any social media platform, corporation, or bank that denies service or employment based on the individual or entity’s protected speech, political activity, or legal business conduct; and the “Free Speech in Medicine Act.” While none of these bills have become law, a bill to limit the use of generative-AI in elections did recently pass the House.
Meanwhile, AG Andrew Bailey was one of the major leaders against the Biden Administration for coercing social media companies to censor COVID-related information. Missouri v. Biden was a case where Missouri and Louisiana, along with other plaintiffs, argued that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor misinformation. After favorable rulings from lower courts, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the plaintiffs, stating they lacked standing and failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion rather than their own policies.
Key Policymakers:
- AG Andrew Bailey
- Rep. Hardy Billington [R]
Legislative Activity:
HB 932 (2021): This bill specifies that if an interactive computer service provider restricts, censors, or suppresses content that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution, the provider is liable in a civil action to the person whose content was restricted, censored, or suppressed and to any person who would have reasonably received the content. A person whose content is restricted, censored, or suppressed or a person who reasonably would have received the content is entitled to civil damages as specified in the bill. The court may also award punitive damages. An action for civil damages may be brought in the civil court in which the person resides. The court must award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Introduced by Rep. Hardy Billington [R] in January 2021 but did not progress.
HB 1231 (2021): This bill establishes the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act”, which prohibits certain social media websites, defined in the bill, from intentionally censoring the political or religious speech of a Missouri resident and provides the user a cause of action against a social media website that censors such speech. Hate speech will not be a justifiable basis for a social media website to censor users. The bill also provides circumstances in which a social media website will be immune from liability for censoring certain users or speech. The Attorney General may bring a civil cause of action against a social media website in a court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of users who reside in Missouri and whose political or religious speech was censored in violation of the provisions of this bill. Introduced by Rep. Dottie Bailey [R] in February 2021 but did not progress.
HB 2628: This bill prohibits any person or entity from, within 90 days of an election, distributing a synthetic media message of any candidate or party for elective office who will appear on a state or local ballot. Does not apply if the synthetic media includes a disclaimer stating that it has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. Introduced by Rep. Ben Baker [R] in January 2024 and passed the House nearly unanimously.
HB 2105 (2022): Establishes the Missouri Censorship Prohibition Act to protect the rights of speakers on campuses of public institutions of higher education. This bill prohibits public institutions of higher education that receive state funds to censor a speaker based solely on the speaker’s particular political persuasion, party affiliation, or viewpoint or ideology, if that viewpoint or ideology is in any major American political party platform. Violations are cause for a civil action for defamation, along with additional actions outlined in the bill. Introduced by Rep. Adam Schnelting [R] in January 2022 but did not progress.
HB 2157: This bill establishes the “Children’s Internet Safety Act”, specifying that beginning July 1, 2025, a social media company shall not permit a Missouri resident who is a minor to be an account holder or to open an account on the social media company’s social media platform unless the Missouri resident has the express consent of a parent or guardian. The social media company is required to verify the age of an existing or new Missouri account holder and, if the existing or new account holder is a minor, confirm the minor has consent as required by the bill. Introduced by Rep. Josh Hurlbert [R] in January 2024 and was voted favorably out of committee in March.
SB 1170: The act prohibits public and private institutions of higher education that receive state funds from excluding any student from participation in any education program, activity, or division of the institution based on such student’s participation in a “protected association”, defined in the act as activity involving the exercise of the freedom of speech as provided in the United States Constitution. Introduced by Sen. Jill Carter [R] in January 2024 but has not progressed.
HB 1130 (2021): This bill prohibits the state, any agency, and any political subdivision from using public funds to conduct business with any social media platform, corporation, or bank that denies service or employment based on the individual or entity’s protected speech, political activity, or legal business conduct. Introduced by Rep. Chris Dinkins [R] in February 2021 but did not progress.
SB 993 (2020): Establishes the “Free Speech in Medicine Act” regarding off-label uses of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. States that no official, employee, or agent of the state shall enforce or apply any state law against, or otherwise prosecute, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or its representatives, for engaging in truthful promotion of an off-label use of a drug, biological product, or medical device. No state regulatory board shall revoke, fail to renew, or take any other action against the license or registry of any pharmaceutical manufacturer, or its representatives, or health care provider solely for engaging in truthful promotion of an off-label use of a drug, biological product, or medical device. The state and any political subdivision of the state shall be prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce or cooperate with federal attempts to enforce or apply 21 U.S.C. Section 331 or 21 U.S.C. Section 352 against, or otherwise prosecute, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or its representatives, solely for engaging in truthful promotion of an off-label use of a drug, biological product, or medical device. Introduced by Sen. Eric Burlison [R] in February 2020 but did not progress.
HR 4210: States the support of the members of the Missouri House of Representatives for remedies to fully compensate military service members who were wrongfully terminated for their choice not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Introduced by Rep. Hardy Billington [R] in February 2024 and was voted favorably out of committee in April.
HB 1785: Establishes the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which provides procedures for dismissal of causes of action based on public expression in public proceedings or on matters of public concern. The bill is based on a model uniform law drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, also known as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC). Introduced by Rep. Chad Perkins [R] in January 2024 but has not progressed.
Legal Actions:
Missouri v. Biden. AG Andrew Bailey was one of the major leaders in this series of cases against the Biden Administration for coercing social media companies to censor COVID-related information. Missouri v. Biden was a case where Missouri and Louisiana, along with other plaintiffs, argued that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor misinformation. After favorable rulings from lower courts, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the plaintiffs, stating they lacked standing and failed to prove that social media platforms acted due to government coercion rather than their own policies. The court found no substantial risk of future injury to the plaintiffs, thus dismissing the case.
Attorney General Bailey Directs Letter to Advertisers Amidst Media Matters Investigation. On October 23, 2023 Attorney General Andrew Bailey, in partnership with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, directed a letter to major companies who pulled their advertisements from X, formerly known as Twitter. The two attorneys general, who have partnered together on the landmark free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, informed the advertisers that Missouri has opened an investigation into Media Matters for allegedly fraudulent behavior. Missouri has demanded Media Matters retain documents and internal communications relating to its campaign against X. The AGs stated “Given the publicly reported effort to co-opt corporations into assisting Media Matters in its potentially illegal effort to financially target X based on inauthentic, manufactured and malicious activity, we felt it necessary to directly provide you with notice of Missouri’s actions. Millions of our states’ residents shop at your business, use your services, or earn their livelihoods as your employees. The last thing we would want is for you to be swindled by activist deception and dive into a controversial issue that only harms Americans and free speech.”
