Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has opened a formal investigation into Google and Meta, alleging that the tech giants are suppressing pro-Second Amendment speech on their platforms. This move, revealed in a sweeping Civil Investigative Demand (CID) dated June 27, 2025, accuses YouTube and other Google entities of violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by engaging in deceptive or unfair trade practices.
The investigation was launched after mounting concerns from firearms advocates and content creators who say they’ve been silenced online for simply speaking about guns, gun rights, and related topics.
Focus on Free Speech and Gun Rights
According to the CID, the state of Missouri believes that Google (doing business as YouTube) may have suppressed legal speech related to firearms through demonetization, delisting, banning, or algorithmic downranking. Bailey argues that such practices threaten the constitutional right to bear arms by curbing public dialogue around lawful gun ownership, self-defense, and related commerce. In the document, he emphasized that “the ability of each citizen to provide for their own well-being and the protection of their families is the linchpin of liberty.”
Claims of Targeted Censorship
The lawsuit focuses on content tied to the sale, safe use, and lawful possession of firearms. Bailey wants Google and YouTube to provide all documents tied to policy changes, community guidelines, or algorithm updates that may have affected how pro-gun content is treated. The demand even includes a request for internal communications between Google and major political actors, including the Biden administration, the FBI, the ATF, and gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center.
YouTube and Meta Under the Microscope
William Kirk, a firearms attorney and president of Washington Gun Law, echoed the lawsuit’s concerns in a detailed breakdown on his YouTube channel. “Every single platform that we deal with candidly hates our guts,” Kirk said, speaking on behalf of 2A content creators. He explained that creators are not just being financially impacted, but that their First and Second Amendment rights are under fire. “How can we possibly exercise our Second Amendment rights if we’re not also allowed to talk about it?” he asked.
Censorship Affects More Than Creators
While Kirk acknowledges that monetization matters to creators, he stresses that the real issue is deeper. It’s about the systemic blocking of open discussion on gun rights. He claims platforms are deliberately muting voices that promote lawful gun use, personal protection, hunting, or even political opinions tied to firearms. According to Kirk, this silent erasure affects national conversations and ultimately weakens the constitutional fabric protecting the Second Amendment.
Bailey Demands Answers
The CID spells out 17 categories of documents and evidence Bailey expects from Google and YouTube. These range from policy documents and algorithm details to internal emails and external communications with government agencies. Most notably, the attorney general is demanding any evidence that algorithms were explicitly designed, or simply operated, to suppress or treat firearm-related content differently.
Possible External Influence From Washington
Kirk noted that Bailey is not only looking at internal decision-making within tech companies, but also whether pressure from the federal government or political advocacy groups played a role. This part of the investigation may prove crucial. If Google or Meta coordinated with anti-gun organizations or federal agencies to suppress certain voices, that could elevate the case from civil concern to a matter of constitutional law.
Not Just a Missouri Problem
Although the lawsuit originates in Missouri, its implications are national. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook operate across state lines, and their policies affect millions of Americans. If Bailey’s investigation uncovers widespread suppression, it could lead to more lawsuits from other states – or even federal action. As Kirk put it, “This affects our entire community and the ability to speak openly as our founding fathers intended it to be.”
A Pattern of Deplatforming?
One of the most serious concerns raised in the lawsuit is the alleged pattern of shadow banning, algorithmic suppression, and demonetization without clear explanation. Bailey’s demand seeks documentation on how firearm-related posts have been flagged or treated differently. He’s also looking into whether these platforms applied separate rules for users under 18, potentially discriminating against youth-oriented gun safety or hunting content.
A Legal Strategy With Teeth
The investigation is being pursued under Missouri’s fair trade laws, not criminal statutes. This strategy allows Bailey to demand broad records without the burden of criminal proof. According to the CID, failure to comply with the demand by August 26, 2025, could result in penalties, including fines and potential legal action. The demand states that obstructing the investigation could be considered a Class A misdemeanor under Missouri law.
Why This Matters Now
This case comes at a time when digital censorship and free speech are hot-button issues across the political spectrum. What sets this lawsuit apart is that it zeroes in on gun rights – a core issue in American constitutional law. The idea that companies might be quietly erasing conversations about self-defense and lawful gun ownership hits a nerve for many Americans. Whether you’re a gun owner or not, the notion that entire discussions can be throttled based on algorithmic bias raises alarm bells.
A Fight Worth Watching
This is more than just a spat between politicians and tech giants. It’s a legal challenge to the quiet control that platforms can exert over public discourse. Bailey’s aggressive and highly detailed approach shows he isn’t bluffing. And with Kirk lending his legal expertise to explain what’s at stake, the gun rights community has strong voices speaking out. Whether the investigation leads to real accountability remains to be seen, but one thing is clear – this case is not just about YouTube videos. It’s about whether Americans are allowed to talk about the rights they still have.
A Pivotal Moment for Gun Rights
The lawsuit brought by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and championed publicly by legal analyst William Kirk is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for gun rights online. As content creators continue to face censorship, and as social media companies operate with growing power over public debate, this legal action could draw a long-overdue line in the sand. Bailey’s demand letter isn’t just paperwork – it’s a shot across the bow of Big Tech, warning them that silent suppression may finally meet loud resistance.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.