Amicus Brief: Mississippi’s Social Media Censorship Law Threatens Free Speech and User Privacy Online  

NetChoice v. Fitch 

>Read our full amicus brief here

Mississippi has enacted a well-meaning but sweeping regulation of social media sites in an attempt to protect children online. The law exemplifies a trend of wildly overbroad state laws that violate clear First Amendment rights of both adults and children. 

 Originally set to take effect July 1, 2024, Mississippi’s House Bill 1126 requires social media platforms to verify the age of all users, obtain parental consent for users under 18, and block content that is “harmful to minors.”  

 The law is now the subject of a high-stakes emergency application before the Supreme Court. Netchoice, representing major digital platforms, is asking the Court to reinstate a district court order halting the law’s enforcement.  

CIR filed an amicus brief supporting NetChoice, explaining why Mississippi’s attempt to “child-proof” social media eviscerates the constitutional right to anonymous speech for everyone, while chilling online expression and undermining user privacy. 

After a federal district court twice blocked enforcement of Mississippi’s social media law while the litigation was ongoing, the Fifth Circuit reversed in a one-sentence order issued on July 17, 2025. Days later, NetChoice filed its emergency Supreme Court application, setting up a critical constitutional showdown over digital speech rights. 

Why This Case Matters 

This case tests whether states can impose broad restrictions on digital expression by forcing adults and minors alike to surrender privacy and accept government control over online content. Mississippi’s law is just one of nearly a dozen other states that have passed similar restrictions on access to social media.

Background: The First Amendment and Free Speech Rights Online 

The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from restricting expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content. When laws target expression based on its content, it triggers the highest level of constitutional review, strict scrutiny, which requires that the law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. 

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that First Amendment protections apply to all types of expression—from spoken and written words to symbols, pictures, paintings, drawings, and films. This is equally true of expression conveyed online, including on social media platforms. As Justice Kagan noted in Moody v. NetChoice, “the First Amendment . . . does not go on leave when social media are involved.” 

Digital platforms host the core speech of our constitutional tradition: political dialogue, artistic work, academic research, and cultural debate. Today, social media platforms shape how we relate to family and friends, businesses, civil organizations, and even government officials.   

Dive Deeper: Learn More about Mississippi HB 1126  

What Social Media Platforms Are Covered: HB 1126 applies to traditional social media platforms that allow users to create personal profiles, socially interact with other users, and post content. In addition to major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, this broad definition encompasses smaller sites that focus on particular communities. For example, HB 1126 would require age-verification and parental consent for fitness sites like Strava and AllTrails, or for the book review site, Goodreads, and cooking sites like Allrecipes. 

Notable Exemptions: At the same time, HB 1126 contains notable exceptions for platforms that “primarily function” to provide: 

• News (news websites with social features) 

• Sports information (ESPN-style platforms) 

• Online video games (gaming platforms like Steam) 

• Career development (professional networks like LinkedIn) 

• Commerce (shopping sites with reviews and comments).   

This content-based double standard—which targets some social media platforms and not others based solely on the topic or subject matter—means the law can only be justified as the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. 

How the Law Works: HB 1126 creates a comprehensive gatekeeping system to access social media. Before anyone can use covered platforms, they must first prove their age through government-issued identification or other “commercially reasonable” verification methods. For users under 18, the law requires explicit parental consent before they can create accounts and access any content.  

But Mississippi’s HB 1126 does not just regulate—it censors. The law also mandates that platforms actively monitor and filter content deemed “harmful to minors,” creating a vague and subjective standard for censorship that platforms must navigate under threat of significant penalties. 

Enforcement: Mississippi’s enforcement mechanism creates a compliance nightmare for platforms through severe civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and even criminal penalties under the state’s deceptive trade practices statute. 

In sum, HB 1126 suppresses a staggering amount of constitutionally protected expression while setting a dangerous precedent: The government can insert itself between citizens and ideas under the guise of protecting minors.

CIR’s amicus brief in this case was written by attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. We are grateful for their exceptional work and commitment to defending constitutional principles.