Is corporate censorship the same as government censorship?
In the U.S. we have freedom of speech, so government censorship is a serious thing. But when we work for a corporation, we have to sign legal documents that give the company the power to terminate our contract. Which is why celebrities often get fired/lose their sponsorship for saying offensive things. Is this kind of corporate censorship as serious as government censorship? Are they one in the same since the corporation is inside the U.S.? Or are these two completely different concepts?
I believe the primary difference is where the funding comes from. Government sponsored censorship is sticky because taxpayers fund the government and it is suppose to "work for us" based upon results of decisions we made via the process of democracy.
Having said that elected official are entitled to voice their opinions. If their constituents disagree they can vote them out of office.
A corporation is not beholden to anyone but it's shareholders.
If having a celebrity represent their product (hurts their brand) and people start to boycott their products and services the corporation will act in (it's) best interest. In fact many corporations include various "moral" and other "clauses" in their contracts with celebrities.
You're not going to see Bill Cosby pitching JELL-O Pudding ever again.
If a corporation knew their bottom line would not be affected by what the celebrity said or did they probably would stay the course.
Corporations are all about maximizing profits year over year. It's enough for them to compete with similar businesses without having to take up arms on polarizing political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their products/services.
No one goes into business to lose money!
The primary role of government censorship is to censor all speech that may produce harm. For example, if your neighbor is having a boisterous party at 2 am, then you can call the police and report a noise violation. This type of censorship is necessary for society to function.
Nonetheless, there was a suppression of communistic beliefs and speech in the 1950s, which would be considered in contradiction to the first amendment. This type of suppression is wrong. Government censorship is necessary, but it can also be misused as a tactic for the majority to shut the mouths of the minority.
Corporate censorship, on the other hand, has one simple goal: money. Corporations have to censor their employees to a degree because they are held accountable for some things said by their employees. As long as the speech of the employees does not interfere with safety or money, then the corporation would have no reason or right to censor it.
With regards to corporate censorship, the employee can always leave the relationship, unless that employee signs a contract. Thus, there is a kind of direct agreement by the employee to be censored; whereas, with the government, there is no direct agreement for censorship. Because of this, corporations can have wider control over the censorship of employees than the government has over its citizens.
Overall, corporations and governments operate censorship due to different goals and in different ways. Corporations seek money and censor through direct agreements; and, the government seeks stability and censors through law. Also, anyone can leave a corporation at any time and thus remains capable of reinstating their freedom of speech.
I would say that as of the last Bush Administration the answer is yes when it comes to Energy. During that time when you went to the White House web site, you would find Environment with the heading of Energy. In the last few years, the Obama Administration has changed that to Council of Environmental Quality.
That is a good move for the citizens who are most affected by environmental inequality - the poor, and less educated segments of society.
Unfortunately at this time States have taken big energy under their gilded wings, and agencies that were once in place to protect citizens from Energy, they now protect the profits of energy companies.
In Canada, Oil and Gas extraction companies have gone to war with Indigenous Tribes who have not ceded their lands or territories. They burn their way in, go in illegally and set up drilling or mining and when the People who are attached to that land stand up against big energy, they are often arrested, and or killed.
So, when it comes to the fossil fuel industry and the Chemical Barons - Yes, they are the same. This is what drives the greediest and most horrible leaders in place.
What you see, read, hear and to a great degree think is far more censored than Americans think.
As one who lives abroad I can tell you that information in the US is largely "spoon fed" by collusion between the government and media.
Obama wants even more power to control what you hear and even what you say IE; he wants to make it illegal to talk or report positively about guns.
He certainly isn't the only one. Scot Walker (GOP hopeful) wants to force doctors to lie to women patients about birth control and abortion options as well as about the condition of their fetus. IE: no doctor can tell a woman that she is carrying a deformed or impaired fetus.
As for corporate censorship I can see that a corporation has to some extent the need and right to limit what a employee can say about the business or products. They have a right to protect themselves from being associated with someone saying unpopular or controversial things in public.
What I find more objectionable is people being fired for what they say in their Facebook, Twitter or other social media.
I don't believe your example for the corporation is really Censorship.
By definition a contract is an agreement, while censorship is anything but an agreement.
Having said that, most people in the civil sector work under an At Will Employment Contract. While both the employer and the employee can terminate their employment, this contract is usually not negotiated but thrust upon the employee as a sign it if you want to be employed.
This is not a negotiation between parties, and its purpose is to allow the employer to control the employee while taking any permanence of the job down to a whim.
As for freedom of speech, political correctness has gutted that protection.
But, does political correctness have a tangible impact on freedom of speech? Or are the consequences of saying something offensive only ever applied to that employee contract? I.e. someone says something offensive, gets fired.
The chilling effect on freedom of speech by political correctness has no boundaries, while the employment contract allows employers to control the employee at will. Employee has no rights of employment and the relationship ends without a reeason
Can you provide a specific example of freedom of speech being infringed upon by political correctness that isn't related to an employee contract?
by Tammy Barnette 5 years ago
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574549 … ensorship/"Google reports it has seen an "alarming" incidence in government requests to censor Internet content in the past six months." "The Web giant said it received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the...
by LoliHey 22 months ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://jezebel.com/creepy-quantified-se … map=%5B%5DWe all know that "voluntary" means do it or there is no promotion. That's the first problem.Second, what right does a corporation have to know your personal habits? Is there...
by aka-dj 4 years ago
I dislike PC.It stifles free speech, and free thought.It turns people agains each other, through altered forms of communication, and creates confusion through altering the meaning of words, and phrases.What are your thoughts on it?http://www.truenews.org/Liberalism/poli … ntrol.html
by Cagsil 6 years ago
Hey Hubbers,Check this out. It just goes to show that the FDA is corrupt and has been for the longest time.It finally admits yet again it's actions have been killing people.http://www.naturalnews.com/032659_arsenic_chicken.html
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|