Public Companies And Censorship: Legal Boundaries Explored

Censorship is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are considered offensive, obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, it does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. This means that publicly traded companies can censor speech without violating the First Amendment. However, corporate censorship, particularly in the media and entertainment industries, has been criticised for compromising journalistic integrity and limiting the diversity of ideas and information available to the public.

The First Amendment and publicly traded companies

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects what are commonly known as The Five Freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Notably, the First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech and does not apply to private companies or individuals. This means that publicly traded companies are free to censor their employees' speech without violating the First Amendment.

The First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. It allows individuals to speak, publish, read, and view what they wish, as well as worship and associate with whomever they choose. The right to speak and publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information and to forbid government censorship of various materials.

The Supreme Court has held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information as a corollary to the right to speak. In the 1965 case of Lamont v. Postmaster General, Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point:

> The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful. I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right. The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.

In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the Supreme Court ruled that private operators of public access cable channels are not state actors subject to the First Amendment. The Court acknowledged that private entities may qualify as state actors in limited circumstances, such as when the private entity performs a traditional and exclusive public function. However, the Court concluded that this exception did not apply in the case of public access cable channels, as they have been operated by a variety of private and public actors since the 1970s.

While the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, it does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private companies. Social media companies, for example, have the right to exercise their free speech by excluding users from their services. This is because private companies have a First Amendment and property right to exclude users, as the right to exclude ensures that they are not required to associate with ideas or viewpoints they do not support.

Corporate censorship in the music industry

Corporate censorship is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker's speech by threatening monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace. It is present in many different industries, including the music industry.

Music censorship can also occur when record labels withhold releases due to controversial subject matter. For instance, Warner Bros. Records withheld or delayed gangsta rap albums by Ice-T and Paris over content concerns. Additionally, songs are often edited for broadcast on radio and television to remove objectionable content, such as profanity or references to sex and drug use. This is done to comply with broadcast laws, codes of conduct, and to appeal to a wider audience.

The motivations behind music censorship vary and are influenced by power dynamics. Censorship aims to minimize exposure to controversial topics, restrict freedom of speech, and shield society from detrimental expression. It is more prevalent in autocratic societies and those with low legal security but remains an issue in democratic societies as well.

In conclusion, corporate censorship in the music industry involves the suppression of musicians' works through marketing and distribution control, record label decisions, and content editing for broadcast. These practices are influenced by societal norms, legal frameworks, and commercial considerations.

Corporate censorship in the publishing industry

Corporate censorship is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker's speech by threatening monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace. It is present in many different industries, including the publishing industry.

The publishing industry is meant to help create and maintain free and healthy societies. However, publishers must have the will and ability to challenge established thinking, preserve the history of cultures, and make room for critical opposition and challenging artistic expression. Self-censorship in the publishing industry is often based on fear—of losing one's job, of being passed over for promotion, of standing out, or of not being politically correct. This fear can lead to an erosion of free publication as more commercial thinking influences editors' decisions.

There are several examples of corporate censorship in the publishing industry. In 1998, HarperCollins dropped plans to publish the memoirs of Chris Patten, titled "East and West," out of concern that it might affect the relationship between Star TV and the Chinese government. In another instance, the Walt Disney Company prevented Miramax from releasing "Fahrenheit 911" in 2004. This was a business decision, but it had substantial political consequences.

Corporate censorship can also occur in the form of self-censorship by journalists and editors. In the news publishing business, self-censorship can be driven by the desire to keep one's job and support the interests of the company. This can result in homogenized, corporate-friendly media that avoids controversial topics and softens the tone of stories.

Overall, corporate censorship in the publishing industry poses a serious threat to free expression and the exchange of ideas. It is important to recognize and address this issue to ensure that publishers can fulfill their role in challenging established thinking and promoting critical artistic expression.

Corporate censorship in journalism and entertainment

In the journalism and entertainment industries, corporate censorship can manifest in several ways. One common form is self-censorship, where journalists and media professionals avoid reporting on certain topics or soften their tone to maintain their jobs and please their employers. This self-censorship is often driven by the desire to avoid conflict with powerful corporations or government agencies, as well as the need to protect the financial interests of the media organisation. In some cases, it may be influenced by advertisers, who can threaten to withdraw advertising dollars if certain content is deemed offensive.

Another form of corporate censorship is direct pressure or influence from corporate owners on the editorial content. For example, News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has been criticised for promoting political agendas aligned with Murdoch's views across its media outlets, including Fox News. This raises concerns about the impact of ownership on editorial content and the potential suppression of dissenting viewpoints.

Economic censorship is also prevalent, where financial considerations influence the selection and framing of news stories. Media outlets driven by the need to generate revenue may prioritise content that attracts a large audience or appeals to advertisers, leading to an underrepresentation of significant but less engaging topics.

Access journalism is another challenge, where media outlets may compromise their editorial independence to secure exclusive content from powerful sources. This can result in overly favourable or uncritical coverage of these sources.

In addition, legal threats and defamation lawsuits pose a significant deterrent to media outlets, as the potential cost of defending against legal challenges can lead to self-censorship, even when factual information is available.

The concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few corporate giants is another concerning trend. This allows controlling interests to dominate the narrative and marginalise alternative voices, compromising the media's role as the fourth pillar of democracy.

To address corporate censorship, it is crucial to uphold the principles of a free and independent press. Media organisations must navigate the balance between financial viability and editorial independence, fostering an environment that prioritises journalistic integrity. Consumers of news should also be aware of potential biases and influences shaping content, supporting media outlets committed to transparency and integrity.

Corporate censorship by major corporations

Corporate censorship is when a spokesperson, employer, or business associate sanctions a speaker's speech by threatening them with monetary loss, employment loss, or loss of access to the marketplace. It is present in many different industries, including e-commerce and technology, music, publishing, journalism, media, and entertainment.

E-commerce and Technology

Corporate censorship in the e-commerce and technology industry usually involves the explicit or implicit banning or suppression of certain material by a tech company from the product it offers. For example, in 2018, Google and Amazon were thanked by Telegram's founder for not taking part in Russian censorship of the company. However, Google and Amazon later disabled domain fronting and helped in the Russian censors' endeavor.

Music

Corporate censorship in the music industry involves the censorship of musicians' artistic works by refusing to market or distribute them. For instance, Ice-T altered the lyrics of "Cop Killer" due to pressure applied to Time Warner by William Bennett and various religious and advocacy groups.

Publishing

At the 2012 PEN World Voices Festival, Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses, described censorship as "anti-creation". Giannina Braschi, author of United States of Banana, condemned corporate censorship as financial control, stating, "Nobody owns a work of art, not even the artist."

Journalism, Media, and Entertainment

Corporate censorship in the news publishing business often occurs as self-censorship. It is difficult to document because it is covert. Journalists want to keep their jobs, and editors support the interests of the company. These small actions and non-actions accumulate to produce homogenized, corporate-friendly media.

More than 40% of journalists and news executives have deliberately engaged in corporate censorship by avoiding newsworthy stories or softening their tones. More than a third of respondents stated that news organizations would ignore news that might hurt their financial interests. A similar fraction stated that they self-censored to further or not endanger their careers.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

One of the most disturbing incidents of corporate censorship involves the news reporting in the U.S. of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which made fundamental changes to the limitations on ownership of media conglomerates within the U.S. Despite heavy lobbying from media interests, there was very little coverage of this Act by U.S. news media.

Social Media

The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media platforms can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.

Frequently asked questions