As part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, Article 19 states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Though we oftentimes take these rights for granted, they are not inalienable. The article itself was later amended in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to impose restrictions on expression “such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
While most agree on some limitations to the freedom of expression when it comes to topics like defamation, fraud, obscenity, and threats, the definitions of these tend to be narrow, leaving a lot of gray areas. Justifications, based on ideas of a “harm principle” or “offense principle,” are also murky and debatable.
Because the scope of offense for any form of expression varies widely from person to person, the measures to censor certain language and texts continuously evolve. As Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, points out, “We are seeing tremendous attacks on First Amendment freedoms across the country right now, at all levels of government. Censorship is proliferating, and it’s deeply troubling.”
This most current shift in the censorship climate affects every part of society in different ways and to varying degrees. In this article, we explore various types of censorship and look at how it influences workplace environments.
In the broadest of terms, censorship, when used as a noun, blocks words, images, or ideas from being read, heard, or seen. The verb form, to censor, means reviewing something and choosing to remove or hide parts that are considered unacceptable.
Though, as noted before, the government can censor information based on very limited parameters, most forms of expression are protected from censorship by the First Amendment. This broad category encompasses federal, state, and local governments including elected officials, public schools and universities, courts, and police officers.
The First Amendment only applies to government restrictions on expression, however, not to the censorship enforced by private individuals or businesses. Social media platforms, for example, can restrict the speech of their users because they are private entities. Also, private pressure groups can censor forms of expression both by lobbying various governmental actors and private organizations and through protected actions like boycotts.
While censorship is separated into numerous categories, some are pertinent to a discussion about workplace environments, such as:
Within these categories, the act of censoring is carried out in two ways:
Censorship in the workplace comes in various forms with each serving distinctive functions, such as:
To prevent the misuse of company property and protect individuals from mistreatment, businesses and institutions restrict access to the internet and social media. This ensures employees aren’t spending time on non work-related sites or sharing inappropriate links. These policies are further intended to avert internal gossip, slander, and bullying.
The administration of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) is also a widely-accepted censorship strategy meant to protect confidential and proprietary information. Because it is a mutually agreed upon contract, an NDA does not typically violate freedom of speech. However, neither does it function as a shield for any party to commit acts that are illegal or could cause harm to the public.
By examining the social media policies of several large corporations, the overarching goal is to protect the company’s brand and reputation. Though these efforts seem to make good business sense, they sometimes go too far in stifling employees freedom of expression.
As stated by Best Buy:
“Just in case you are forgetful or ignore the guidelines above, here’s what could happen. You could:
Remember: protect the brand, protect yourself.”
With constantly changing market conditions, organizations must continuously assess the wants and needs of their target market, including how they align with current societal issues. The social and political climates driving a target audience affect branding, marketing approaches, and forms of expression at the individual level.
As these political and social trends seep into the workplace culture, they drive self-censorship. Whether it is through direct speech, sharing a news article, wearing jewelry with a religious symbol, or carrying a notebook with a rainbow sticker, employees can feel uncomfortable or threatened for expressing opinions on issues like politics, religion, healthcare, and gender identity.
When an industry’s market is the general public, societal tensions have even more explicit effects on the employees. For example, consider the impacts that current book banning efforts have on teachers, librarians, and bookstore owners, or how differing opinions on COVID testing and masking influences healthcare workers.
Sometimes people get too comfortable or complacent with the workplace environment. They end up developing an “it’s always been done this way” mentality. Even when the practices or mindsets become outdated, they persist out of habit, leading to the censorship of contemporary ideas.
New and existing employees are often shamed or threatened with repercussions for challenging the status quo. While this pressure to censor initially comes from other employees and internal policies, it eventually results in self-censorship among an organization’s most potentially valuable innovators.
Although these were infractions that could result in injury to employees, I was brushed off and threatened with termination. Most surprisingly, I talked with others who had worked for the company for 10, 15, and sometimes 25 years. They were unwilling to report these safety violations. The self-censorship was so ingrained into the culture that these underpaid, underappreciated, underrepresented employees of a multi-billion dollar company knowingly turned a blind eye.
While proponents of censorship argue that it fosters a harmonious and inclusive environment by curbing offensive or inappropriate content, critics contend that it stifles creativity, hinders open discourse, and impedes the free exchange of ideas. Suppression of diverse viewpoints, even if unintentional, can lead to groupthink and limit the potential for constructive dissent.
By micromanaging the expression and judgment of employees, stringent censorship policies foster an environment of distrust that erodes morale and job satisfaction. Censorship creates a culture of avoidance where employees fear addressing important matters for fear of retribution. It also hinders the learning and growth necessary for progress.
Censorship in the workplace further impedes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. When meaningful conversations are restricted, or even forbidden, and diverse voices are limited, the goals of DEI initiatives to address inequality are undermined. Because DEI involves acknowledging uncomfortable truths about historical and systemic inequalities, censoring these discussions erodes an organization's commitment to confronting these challenges.
While proponents of censorship argue that it fosters a harmonious and inclusive environment by curbing offensive or inappropriate content, critics contend that it stifles creativity, hinders open discourse, and impedes the free exchange of ideas. Suppression of diverse viewpoints, even if unintentional, can lead to groupthink and limit the potential for constructive dissent.
By micromanaging the expression and judgment of employees, stringent censorship policies foster an environment of distrust that erodes morale and job satisfaction. Censorship creates a culture of avoidance where employees fear addressing important matters for fear of retribution. It also hinders the learning and growth necessary for progress.
Censorship in the workplace further impedes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. When meaningful conversations are restricted, or even forbidden, and diverse voices are limited, the goals of DEI initiatives to address inequality are undermined. Because DEI involves acknowledging uncomfortable truths about historical and systemic inequalities, censoring these discussions erodes an organization's commitment to confronting these challenges.
In this article, we discuss 10 leadership qualities that are often overlooked in graduate school education such as humility, emotional intelligence,...
This article discusses the impact of artificial intelligence on libraries and library professionals, covering topics such as information...
In an effort to highlight the dangers of censorshi0, library and First Amendment activist Judith Krug founded Banned Books Week in 1982.
Be the first to know about new B2B SaaS Marketing insights to build or refine your marketing function with the tools and knowledge of today’s industry.