censorship in mass media essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech

Learning objectives.

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library – Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries).” Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

• causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts;
• depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct; and
• lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

• contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions;
• dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and
• is used simply to shock or arouse an audience.

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission).” Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference).” The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).”

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 “Movies” , this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions (Film Reference).” Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).”

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industry’s self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitution or murder civilians (Media Awareness). In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds (Media Awareness).” Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hays Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hays Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

Arts Reformation, “The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html .

Case Summaries, “First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ .

Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html .

Film Reference, “Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm .

Media Awareness, Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm .

Understanding Media and Culture Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

People have challenged each other’s views for much of human history . But the internet – particularly social media – has changed how, when and where these kinds of interactions occur. The number of people who can go online and call out others for their behavior or words is immense, and it’s never been easier to summon groups to join the public fray .

The phrase  “cancel culture” is said to have originated  from a relatively obscure slang term – “cancel,” referring to  breaking up with someone  – used in a 1980s song. This term was then referenced in film and television and later evolved and gained traction on social media. Over the past several years, cancel culture has become a deeply contested idea in the nation’s political discourse . There are plenty of debates over what it is and what it means, including whether it’s a way to hold people accountable, or a tactic to punish others unjustly, or a mix of both. And some argue that cancel culture doesn’t even exist .

To better understand how the U.S. public views the concept of cancel culture, Pew Research Center asked Americans in September 2020 to share – in their own words – what they think the term means and, more broadly, how they feel about the act of calling out others on social media. The survey finds a public deeply divided, including over the very meaning of the phrase.

Pew Research Center has a long history of studying the tone and nature of online discourse as well as emerging internet phenomena. This report focuses on American adults’ perceptions of cancel culture and, more generally, calling out others on social media. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,093 U.S. adults from Sept. 8 to 13, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

This essay primarily focuses on responses to three different open-ended questions and includes a number of quotations to help illustrate themes and add nuance to the survey findings. Quotations may have been lightly edited for grammar, spelling and clarity. Here are the  questions used for this essay , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Who’s heard of ‘cancel culture’?

As is often the case when a new term enters the collective lexicon, public awareness of the phrase “cancel culture” varies – sometimes widely – across demographic groups.

Overall, 44% of Americans say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase, including 22% who have heard a great deal, according to the Center’s survey of 10,093 U.S. adults, conducted Sept. 8-13, 2020. Still, an even larger share (56%) say they’ve heard nothing or not too much about it, including 38% who have heard nothing at all. (The survey was fielded before a string of recent conversations and controversies about cancel culture.)

Familiarity with the term varies with age. While 64% of adults under 30 say they have heard a great deal or fair amount about cancel culture, that share drops to 46% among those ages 30 to 49 and 34% among those 50 and older.

There are gender and educational differences as well. Men are more likely than women to be familiar with the term, as are those who have a bachelor’s or advanced degree when compared with those who have lower levels of formal education. 1

While discussions around cancel culture can be highly partisan, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are no more likely than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to say they have heard at least a fair amount about the phrase (46% vs. 44%). (All references to Democrats and Republicans in this analysis include independents who lean to each party.)

When accounting for ideology, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are more likely to have heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture than their more moderate counterparts within each party. Liberal Democrats stand out as most likely to be familiar with the term.

How do Americans define ‘cancel culture’?

As part of the survey, respondents who had heard about “cancel culture” were given the chance to explain in their own words what they think the term means.

The most common responses by far centered around accountability. Some 49% of those familiar with the term said it describes actions people take to hold others accountable: 2

A small share who mentioned accountability in their definitions also discussed how these actions can be misplaced, ineffective or overtly cruel.

Some 14% of adults who had heard at least a fair amount about cancel culture described it as a form of censorship, such as a restriction on free speech or as history being erased:

A similar share (12%) characterized cancel culture as mean-spirited attacks used to cause others harm:

Five other distinct descriptions of the term cancel culture also appeared in Americans’ responses: people canceling anyone they disagree with, consequences for those who have been challenged, an attack on traditional American values, a way to call out issues like racism or sexism, or a misrepresentation of people’s actions. About one-in-ten or fewer described the phrase in each of these ways.

There were some notable partisan and ideological differences in what the term cancel culture represents. Some 36% of conservative Republicans who had heard the term described it as actions taken to hold people accountable, compared with roughly half or more of moderate or liberal Republicans (51%), conservative or moderate Democrats (54%) and liberal Democrats (59%).

Conservative Republicans who had heard of the term were more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to see cancel culture as a form of censorship. Roughly a quarter of conservative Republicans familiar with the term (26%) described it as censorship, compared with 15% of moderate or liberal Republicans and roughly one-in-ten or fewer Democrats, regardless of ideology. Conservative Republicans aware of the phrase were also more likely than other partisan and ideological groups to define cancel culture as a way for people to cancel anyone they disagree with (15% say this) or as an attack on traditional American society (13% say this).

Click here to explore more definitions and explanations of the term cancel culture .

Does calling people out on social media represent accountability or unjust punishment?

Given that cancel culture can mean different things to different people, the survey also asked about the more general act of calling out others on social media for posting content that might be considered offensive – and whether this kind of behavior is more likely to hold people accountable or punish those who don’t deserve it.

Overall, 58% of U.S. adults say in general, calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable, while 38% say it is more likely to punish people who don’t deserve it. But views differ sharply by party. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but just 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action generally punishes people who don’t deserve it.

Within each party, there are some modest differences by education level in these views. Specifically, Republicans who have a high school diploma or less education (43%) are slightly more likely than Republicans with some college (36%) or at least a bachelor’s degree (37%) to say calling people out for potentially offensive posts is holding people accountable for their actions. The reverse is true among Democrats: Those with a bachelor’s degree or more education are somewhat more likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to say calling out others is a form of accountability (78% vs. 70%).

Among Democrats, roughly three-quarters of those under 50 (73%) as well as those ages 50 and older (76%) say calling out others on social media is more likely to hold people accountable for their actions. At the same time, majorities of both younger and older Republicans say this action is more likely to punish people who didn’t deserve it (58% and 55%, respectively).

People on both sides of the issue had an opportunity to explain why they see calling out others on social media for potentially offensive content as more likely to be either a form of accountability or punishment. We then coded these answers and grouped them into broad areas to frame the key topics of debates.

Initial coding schemes for each question were derived from reading though the open-ended responses and identifying common themes. Using these themes, coders read each response and coded up to three themes for each response. (If a response mentioned more than three themes, the first three mentioned were coded.)

After all the responses were coded, similarities and groupings among codes both within and across the two questions about accountability and punishment became apparent. As such, answers were grouped into broad areas that framed the biggest points of disagreement between these two groups.

We identified five key areas of disagreement in respondents’ arguments for why they held their views of calling out others, broken down as follows:

• 25% of all adults address topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful
• 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior
• 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important
• 8% address the differing agendas of those who call out others
• 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

For the codes that make up each of these areas, see the Appendix .

Some 17% of Americans who say that calling out others on social media holds people accountable say it can be a teaching moment that helps people learn from their mistakes and do better in the future. Among those who say calling out others unjustly punishes them, a similar share (18%) say it’s because people are not taking the context of a person’s post or the intentions behind it into account before confronting that person.

In all, five types of arguments most commonly stand out in people’s answers. A quarter of all adults mention topics related to whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or are trying to be helpful; 14% center on whether calling out others on social media is a productive behavior or not; 10% focus on whether free speech or creating a comfortable environment online is more important; 8% address the perceived agendas of those who call out others; and 4% focus on whether speaking up is the best action to take if people find content offensive.

Are people rushing to judge or trying to be helpful?

The most common area of opposing arguments about calling out other people on social media arises from people’s differing perspectives on whether people who call out others are rushing to judge or instead trying to be helpful.

One-in-five Americans who see this type of behavior as a form of accountability point to reasons that relate to how helpful calling out others can be. For example, some explained in an open-ended question that they associate this behavior with moving toward a better society or educating others on their mistakes so they can do better in the future. Conversely, roughly a third (35%) of those who see calling out other people on social media as a form of unjust punishment cite reasons that relate to people who call out others being rash or judgmental. Some of these Americans see this kind of behavior as overreacting or unnecessarily lashing out at others without considering the context or intentions of the original poster. Others emphasize that what is considered offensive can be subjective.

Is calling out others on social media productive behavior?

The second most common source of disagreement centers on the question of whether calling out others can solve anything: 13% of those who see calling out others as a form of punishment touch on this issue in explaining their opinion, as do 16% who see it as a form of accountability. Some who see calling people out as unjust punishment say it solves nothing and can actually make things worse. Others in this group question whether social media is a viable place for any productive conversations or see these platforms and their culture as inherently problematic and sometimes toxic. Conversely, there are those who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for what they post or to ensure that people consider the consequences of their social media posts.

Which is more important, free speech or creating a comfortable environment online?

Pew Research Center has studied the tension between free speech and feeling safe online for years, including the increasingly partisan nature of these disputes. This debate also appears in the context of calling out content on social media. Some 12% of those who see calling people out as punishment explain – in their own words – that they are in favor of free speech on social media. By comparison, 10% of those who see it in terms of accountability believe that things said in these social spaces matter, or that people should be more considerate by thinking before posting content that may be offensive or make people uncomfortable.

What’s the agenda behind calling out others online?

Another small share of people mention the perceived agenda of those who call out other people on social media in their rationales for why calling out others is accountability or punishment. Some people who see calling out others as a form of accountability say it’s a way to expose social ills such as misinformation, racism, ignorance or hate, or a way to make people face what they say online head-on by explaining themselves. In all, 8% of Americans who see calling out others as a way to hold people accountable for their actions voice these types of arguments.

Those who see calling others out as a form of punishment, by contrast, say it reflects people canceling anyone they disagree with or forcing their views on others. Some respondents feel people are trying to marginalize White voices and history. Others in this group believe that people who call out others are being disingenuous and doing so in an attempt to make themselves look good. In total, these types of arguments were raised by 9% of people who see calling out others as punishment. 

Should people speak up if they are offended?

Arguments for why calling out others is accountability or punishment also involve a small but notable share who debate whether calling others out on social media is the best course of action for someone who finds a particular post offensive. Some 5% of people who see calling out others as punishment say those who find a post offensive should not engage with the post. Instead, they should take a different course of action, such as removing themselves from the situation by ignoring the post or blocking someone if they don’t like what that person has to say. However, 4% of those who see calling out others as a form of accountability believe it is imperative to speak up because saying nothing changes nothing.

Beyond these five main areas of contention, some Americans see shades of gray when it comes to calling out other people on social media and say it can be difficult to classify this kind of behavior as a form of either accountability or punishment. They note that there can be great variability from case to case, and that the efficacy of this approach is by no means uniform: Sometimes those who are being called out may respond with heartfelt apologies but others may erupt in anger and frustration.

Acknowledgments – Appendix – Methodology – Topline

What Americans say about cancel culture and calling out others on social media

Below, we have gathered a selection of quotes from three open-ended survey questions that address two key topics. Americans who’ve heard of the term cancel culture were asked to define what it means to them. After answering a closed-ended question about whether calling out others on social media was more likely to hold people accountable for their actions or punish people who didn’t deserve it, they were asked to explain why they held this view – that is, they were either asked why they saw it as accountability or why they saw it as punishment.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Threats to freedom of press: Violence, disinformation & censorship

The free flow of ideas: Freedom of the press, the journalists on the frontline

The way we see the world and act on it depends on the information we have. This is why freedom of expression and freedom of the press are fundamental rights, and the free flow of ideas is a key driver of vibrant societies and human progress. UNESCO works to reinforce the tools, skills and conditions that make these rights real.

Peter R. De Vries was on his way to a car park, walking past crowds of people enjoying post-work drinks in the heart of Amsterdam. It was the early evening of 6 July 2021 and the veteran crime journalist had just left a nearby TV studio, where he had appeared as a talk show guest. 

De Vries was a household name in the Netherlands, where his own TV show had run for 17 years, working with crime victims’ families, pursuing unsolved cases and exposing miscarriages of justice. The journalist had recently refused police protection after receiving death threats. A year earlier, he had agreed to act as an adviser to the key prosecution witness against the suspected head of a cocaine trafficking gang. 

As De Vries walked to his car, several bullets were fired at him. He died from his injuries nine days later. 

Threats and violence against journalists

De Vries’ death prompted outpourings of condemnation and anger in Europe. Yet, many journalists and reporters around the world today risk their lives to uncover the truth. Every four days a journalist is killed in the world. In 2020 alone, according to UNESCO, 62 journalists were killed just for doing their jobs. Between 2006 and 2020, over 1,200 media professionals lost their lives in the same way. In nine out of ten cases, the killers go unpunished.

In many countries investigating corruption, trafficking, human rights violations, and political or environmental issues puts journalists’ lives at risk.

62 journalists killed in 2020,

just for doing their jobs: UNESCO

Crimes against journalists have an enormous impact on society as a whole, because they prevent people from making informed decisions.

To help create the kind of environment journalists need to perform their vital work, UNESCO has set up several initiatives, including a global plan of action for the safety of journalists, in order to support Member States to establish or improve mechanisms for prevention, protection and prosecution to bring justice to cases of murdered journalists. One key aspect of UNESCO’s work is first and foremost to report and publicly condemn all cases of killing of journalists. UNESCO also produces training materials and best practices to help improve journalists’ skills and knowledge on international standards for freedom of expression, investigative journalism and reporting on conflicts.

For the past 40 years, UNESCO’s International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)   has focused on targeting the most pressing issues concerning communication development around the world. It helps keep journalists safe, supports the development of media in countries where it is most needed, promotes freedom of expression and public access to information.

UNESCO's initiatives

Fostering Freedom of Expression

Women journalists facing risks and abuse

Across the world, journalists face countless threats every day, ranging from kidnapping, torture and arbitrary detention to disinformation campaigns and harassment, especially on social media. Women journalists are at particular risk. 

According to UNESCO research, 73 per cent of women journalists surveyed said they had been threatened, intimidated and insulted online in connection with their work. Often, the failure to investigate and address online attacks has real-life consequences for women journalists, affecting their mental and physical health. In some cases, online threats can escalate to physical violence and even murder, as the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017 demonstrated.

#JournalistsToo:

For many years, Caruana Galizia had been the most prominent investigative journalist in Malta. She had worked as a columnist and editor in various newspapers. She later set up the website Running Commentary, where she published some of her most significant investigative journalism, exposing tax abuse and corruption in Malta and abroad. Harassment, threats and attempts to silence the journalist had been a constant presence throughout her career.

Online threats and violence against women journalists are designed to belittle, humiliate and shame them, as well as induce fear, silence and discredit them professionally. To respond to increasing threats against women journalists, UNESCO has published a research paper aimed at associations, politicians and governments: The Chilling . It seeks to promote discussion about effective legislative and organizational initiatives that are designed to protect women journalists.

Training judges and prosecutors to defend press freedom

Caruana Galizia’s biggest fear was that her example of physical threats, online harassments and libel lawsuits might discourage other journalists from speaking out. At the time of her death, Caruana Galizia was facing 48 libel suits. Award-winning journalist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa also faced several lawsuits before being found guilty of libel in the Philippines in 2020.

What you are seeing is death by a thousand cuts for press freedom and democracy. It joins the messaging that was pushed out on social media that “journalists equal criminals.

Ressa and a former colleague at the news site she founded, Rappler, were convicted of cyber libel by a court in Manila after they published an article linking a businessman to illegal activities. During her career, Ressa has been arrested and has been subject to a sustained campaign of gendered online abuse, threats and harassment, which at one point, resulted in her receiving an average of over 90 hateful messages an hour on Facebook.

Often based on meritless or exaggerated claims, these lawsuits are brought in order to pressure a journalist or human rights defender, rather than to vindicate a right.

That is why judges and prosecutors play an important role in protecting journalists from threats and harassment, as well as promoting prompt and effective criminal proceedings when attacks occur.

When attacks against journalists go unpunished, the legal system and safety frameworks have failed everyone.

In recent years, UNESCO has trained nearly 23,000 judicial officials, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers, through several workshops on media and journalist law, training courses and online webinars, in partnership with universities and educational institutions like the Knight Center for Journalism at the University of Austin, Texas (USA). Training focuses on international standards related to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, placing a particular focus on issues of impunity. In 2021, UNESCO’s online conference The role of the judiciary and international cooperation to foster safety of journalists – What works? explored effective ways in which judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as regional human rights courts and judicial training institutes, can combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

The fight against misinformation and censorship

The threats to freedom of expression and democracy also come from misinformation and censorship. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing pandemic of misinformation have demonstrated that access to facts and science can be a matter of life and death.  In the first three months of 2020, almost 6,000 people around the world were hospitalized because of coronavirus misinformation, according to a paper published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene . During this period, researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.

In May 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic, the Knight Center, with the support of UNESCO and the World Health Organization (WHO), launched an online course on how to empower journalists, communication workers and content creators countering the phenomenon of disinformation related to the pandemic. The course attracted nearly 9,000 students from 162 countries. ‘2020 was surely the most important year for the fact-checking community,’ said journalist Cristina Tardáguila, who was the course instructor and has been involved in global initiatives against disinformation as associate director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).

Journalism in a Pandemic: Covering COVID-19 Now and in the Future is an online self-directed course available in eight languages:  Arabic ,  Chinese ,  English ,  French ,  Hindi ,  Portuguese ,  Russian and  Spanish . 

Journalists covering the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines have received support through a live webinar, Covering the COVID-19 Vaccines: What Journalists Need to Know.  The recording is now available in 13 languages : Arabic, Bambara, Chinese, Dari, English, French, Guarani, Hindi, Pashto, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Wolof.

The media can also take an important part in understanding complex issues such as climate change and fighting the misinformation that surrounds it. In the face of climate change, journalists have the ability to enlighten the public and be the link between scientists and citizens by highlighting the urgency of the situation, but also tell stories that are positive and inspire solutions.

Getting the Message Across: Reporting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

UNESCO has supported the publication of a handbook for journalists covering climate change. Journalists are key to ensuring that stories of destruction as well as of resistance are shared, in order to get the message across about climate change and avoid misinformation.

The power of community radios

The struggle to protect journalists and promote freedom of expression is just one of the pillars helping build knowledge societies that have the power to transform economies and communities. Universal access to information and knowledge as well as the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity are essential to building peace, sustainable economic development and intercultural dialogue.

The Syrian Hour is a UNESCO-funded project that produces a bi-weekly radio programme, aired on Yarmouk FM radio station in Irbid, northern Jordan, where there is a large Syrian refugee population. 

Syrian Hour

The programme trains young Syrians in radio broadcasting skills to host the shows while the shows themselves provide vital information and support to displaced Syrian refugees residing in Jordan. Majd Al Sammouri is one of the young people being trained to host The Syrian Hour. 

The first paths of my dreams were at the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication at the University of Damascus, a road I thought was lost forever after finding refuge in Jordan. Yarmouk FM was the compass that put me back to the streets of my dreams.

Many Syrian refugees who fled the war to Jordan still lack awareness about their security, liberty and protection rights and what is available to them in terms of food-assistance, education, health or psychosocial support. Often, their precarious refugee status makes them too afraid to approach authorities and humanitarian organizations.

Majd and his young colleagues provide much-needed reliable information and support to the refugee community.

Community radio is a powerful tool because it has the potential to reach out to people with little or no access to information. It is an efficient mechanism for educating and informing people living in remote areas about key issues such as health, education and sustainable development.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios as a means to facilitate social communication and support democratic processes within societies.

Community radios are also being used to promote oral traditions. For example, in Bandafassi, Senegal, the community radio broadcasts stories and proverbs, traditional music and the history of the various villages. This is one of the many small steps towards building pluralistic and diverse media that provide free impartial information options to empower the public to make their choices towards peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

UNESCO is supporting and promoting community radios

Fostering freedom of speech.

UNESCO works to foster free, independent and pluralistic media in print, broadcast and online. Media that adhere to this model enhance freedom of speech as well as contribute to peace, sustainability, poverty eradication and human rights.

#TruthNeverDies

#TruthNeverDies is a campaign developed jointly by UNESCO and communication agency DDB Paris to commemorate the  International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists  on 2 November.

Women Make the News 

Women Make the News is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness on issues relating to gender equality in and through the media, driving debate and encouraging action-oriented solutions to meet global objectives.

#HerMomentsMatter  

#HerMomentsMatter is a continuation of UNESCO’s World Radio Day campaign and aims to promote fairer coverage of women athletes. Women represent just 7 per cent of sportspeople seen, heard or read about in the media, while only 4 per cent of sports stories focus primarily on women. 

Remote Radio Week

Community media, whether broadcast or online, are key to ensuring media pluralism and freedom of expression. They are also an indicator of a healthy democratic society.

In partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO has launched a free online training for radio stations to develop their capacities to broadcast remotely.

AI and Facial Recognition webinar

This webinar about artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, organized by UNESCO, touches on the pressing issues of facial recognition and the concerns it raises about the widespread adoption of AI and human rights. As AI is developing rapidly, it is important to understand its developments, which may have profound and potentially adverse impacts on individuals and society.

Webinar on Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition

World atlas of languages.

The World Atlas of Languages is an unprecedented initiative to preserve, revitalize and promote global linguistic diversity and multilingualism as a unique heritage and treasure of humanity. The project aims to stimulate new research and innovation, create demand for new language resources and tools, help support language policy and legislation, and forge new partnerships and collaboration in the global community to open up access to information.  

World Digital Library

Launched in 2009, the World Digital Library is a project of the U.S. Library of Congress, with the support of UNESCO, and contributions from libraries, archives, museums, educational institutions and international organizations around the world. The WDL seeks to preserve and share some of the world’s most important cultural objects, increasing access to cultural treasures and significant historical documents, to enable discovery, scholarship and use.

UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize

Created in 1997, the annual UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize honours an individual, organisation or institution that has made an outstanding contribution to the defence and, or promotion of press freedom anywhere in the world, especially when this has been achieved in the face of danger. It is named after Guillermo Cano Isaza, a Colombian journalist who was assassinated in front of the offices of his newspaper El Espectador in Bogotá, Colombia on 17 December 1986.

UNESCO / Guillermo Cano

World Press Freedom Prize

Related items

• Information and communication

Special Issue: Propaganda

This essay was published as part of the Special Issue “Propaganda Analysis Revisited”, guest-edited by Dr. A. J. Bauer (Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism and Creative Media, University of Alabama) and Dr. Anthony Nadler (Associate Professor, Department of Communication and Media Studies, Ursinus College).

Propaganda, misinformation, and histories of media techniques

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

This essay argues that the recent scholarship on misinformation and fake news suffers from a lack of historical contextualization. The fact that misinformation scholarship has, by and large, failed to engage with the history of propaganda and with how propaganda has been studied by media and communication researchers is an empirical detriment to it, and serves to make the solutions and remedies to misinformation harder to articulate because the actual problem they are trying to solve is unclear.

School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, UK

Introduction

Propaganda has a history and so does research on it. In other words, the mechanisms and methods through which media scholars have sought to understand propaganda—or misinformation, or disinformation, or fake news, or whatever you would like to call it—are themselves historically embedded and carry with them underlying notions of power and causality. To summarize the already quite truncated argument below, the larger conceptual frameworks for understanding information that is understood as “pernicious” in some way can be grouped into four large categories: studies of propaganda, the analysis of ideology and its relationship to culture, notions of conspiracy theory, and finally, concepts of misinformation and its impact. The fact that misinformation scholarship generally proceeds without acknowledging these theoretical frameworks is an empirical detriment to it and serves to make the solutions and remedies to misinformation harder to articulate because the actual problem to be solved is unclear. 

The following pages discuss each of these frameworks—propaganda, ideology, conspiracy, and misinformation—before returning to the stakes and implications of these arguments for future research on pernicious media content.

Propaganda and applied research

The most salient aspect of propaganda research is the fact that it is powerful in terms of resources while at the same time it is often intellectually derided, or at least regularly dismissed. Although there has been a left-wing tradition of propaganda research housed uneasily within the academy (Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Seldes & Seldes, 1943), this is not the primary way in which journalism or media messaging has been understood in many journalism schools or mainstream communications departments. This relates, of course, to the institutionalization of journalism and communication studies within the academic enterprise. Within this paradox, we see the greater paradox of communication research as both an applied and a disciplinary field. Propaganda is taken quite seriously by governments, the military, and the foreign service apparatus (Simpson, 1994); at the same time, it has occupied a tenuous conceptual place in most media studies and communications departments, with the dominant intellectual traditions embracing either a “limited effects” notion of what communication “does” or else more concerned with the more slippery concept of ideology (and on that, see more below). There is little doubt that the practical study of the power of messages and the field of communication research grew up together. Summarizing an initially revisionist line of research that has now become accepted within the historiography of the field, Nietzel notes that “from the very beginning, communication research was at least in part designed as an applied science, intended to deliver systematic knowledge that could be used for the business of government to the political authorities.” He adds, however, that

“this context also had its limits, for by the end of the decade, communication research had become established at American universities and lost much of its dependence on state funds. Furthermore, it had become increasingly clear that communication scientists could not necessarily deliver knowledge to the political authorities that could serve as a pattern for political acting (Simpson, 1994 pp. 88–89). From then on, politics and communication science parted ways. Many of the approaches and techniques which seemed innovative and even revolutionary in the 1940s and early 1950s, promising a magic key to managing propaganda activities and controlling public opinion, became routine fields of work, and institutions like the USIA carried out much of this kind of research themselves.” (Nietzel, 2016, p. 66)

It is important to note that this parting of ways did  not  mean that no one in the United States and the Soviet Union was studying propaganda. American government records document that, in inflation-adjusted terms, total funding for the United States Information Agency (USIA) rose from $1.2 billion in 1955 to $1.7 billion in 1999, shortly before its functions were absorbed into the United States Department of State. And this was dwarfed by Soviet spending, which spent more money jamming Western Radio transmissions alone than the United States did in its entire propaganda budget. Media effects research in the form of propaganda studies was a big and well-funded business. It was simply not treated as such within the traditional academy (Zollman, 2019). It is also important to note that this does not mean that no one in academia studies propaganda or the effect of government messages on willing or unwilling recipients, particularly in fields like health communication (also quite well-funded). These more academic studies, however, were tempered by the generally accepted fact that there existed no decontextualized, universal laws of communication that could render media messages easily useable by interested actors.

Ideology, economics, and false consciousness

If academics have been less interested than governments and health scientists in analyzing the role played by propaganda in the formation of public opinion, what has the academy worried about instead when it comes to the study of pernicious messages and their role in public life? Open dominant, deeply contested line of study has revolved around the concept of  ideology.  As defined by Raymond Williams in his wonderful  Keywords , ideology refers to an interlocking set of ideas, beliefs, concepts, or philosophical principles that are naturalized, taken for granted, or regarded as self-evident by various segments of society. Three controversial and interrelated principles then follow. First, ideology—particularly in its Marxist version—carries with it the implication that these ideas are somehow deceptive or disassociated from what actually exists. “Ideology is then abstract and false thought, in a sense directly related to the original conservative use but with the alternative—knowledge of real material conditions and relationships—differently stated” (Williams, 1976). Second, in all versions of Marxism, ideology is related to economic conditions in some fashion, with material reality, the economics of a situation, usually dominant and helping give birth to ideological precepts. In common Marxist terminology, this is usually described as the relationship between the base (economics and material conditions) and the superstructure (the realm of concepts, culture, and ideas). Third and finally, it is possible that different segments of society will have  different  ideologies, differences that are based in part on their position within the class structure of that society. 

Western Marxism in general (Anderson, 1976) and Antonio Gramsci in particular helped take these concepts and put them on the agenda of media and communications scholars by attaching more importance to “the superstructure” (and within it, media messages and cultural industries) than was the case in earlier Marxist thought. Journalism and “the media” thus play a major role in creating and maintaining ideology and thus perpetuating the deception that underlies ideological operations. In the study of the relationship between the media and ideology, “pernicious messages” obviously mean something different than they do in research on propaganda—a more structural, subtle, reinforcing, invisible, and materially dependent set of messages than is usually the case in propaganda analysis.  Perhaps most importantly, little research on media and communication understands ideology in terms of “discrete falsehoods and erroneous belief,” preferring to focus on processes of deep structural  misrecognition  that serves dominant economic interests (Corner, 2001, p. 526). This obviously marks a difference in emphasis as compared to most propaganda research. 

Much like in the study of propaganda, real-world developments have also had an impact on the academic analysis of media ideology. The collapse of communism in the 1980s and 1990s and the rise of neoliberal governance obviously has played a major role in these changes. Although only one amongst a great many debates about the status of ideology in a post-Marxist communications context, the exchange between Corner (2001, 2016) and Downey (2008; Downey et al., 2014) is useful for understanding how scholars have dealt with the relationship between large macro-economic and geopolitical changes in the world and fashions of research within the academy. Regardless of whether concepts of ideology are likely to return to fashion, any analysis of misinformation that is consonant with this tradition must keep in mind the relationship between class and culture, the outstanding and open question of “false consciousness,” and the key scholarly insight that ideological analysis is less concerned with false messages than it is with questions of structural misrecognition and the implications this might have for the maintenance of hegemony.

Postmodern conspiracy

Theorizing pernicious media content as a “conspiracy” theory is less common than either of the two perspectives discussed above. Certainly, conspiratorial media as an explanatory factor for political pathology has something of a post-Marxist (and indeed, postmodern) aura. Nevertheless, there was a period in the 1990s and early 2000s when some of the most interesting notions of conspiracy theories were analyzed in academic work, and it seems hard to deny that much of this literature would be relevant to the current emergence of the “QAnon” cult, the misinformation that is said to drive it, and other even more exotic notions of elites conspiring against the public. 

Frederic Jameson has penned remarks on conspiracy theory that represent the starting point for much current writing on the conspiratorial mindset, although an earlier and interrelated vein of scholarship can be found in the work of American writers such as Hofstadter (1964) and Rogin (1986). “Conspiracy is the poor person’s cognitive mapping in the postmodern age,” Jameson writes, “it is a degraded figure of the total logic of late capital, a desperate attempt to represent the latter’s system” (Jameson, 1991). If “postmodernism,” in Jameson’s terms, is marked by a skepticism toward metanarratives, then conspiracy theory is the only narrative system available to explain the various deformations of the capitalist system. As Horn and Rabinach put it:

“The broad interest taken by cultural studies in popular conspiracy theories mostly adopted Jameson’s view and regards them as the wrong answers to the right questions. Showing the symptoms of disorientation and loss of social transparency, conspiracy theorists are seen as the disenfranchised “poor in spirit,” who, for lack of a real understanding of the world they live in, come up with paranoid systems of world explanation.” (Horn & Rabinach, 2008)

Other thinkers, many of them operating from a perch within media studies and communications departments, have tried to take conspiracy theories more seriously (Bratich, 2008; Fenster, 2008; Pratt, 2003; Melley, 2008). The key question for all of these thinkers lies within the debate discussed in the previous section, the degree to which “real material interests” lie behind systems of ideological mystification and whether audiences themselves bear any responsibility for their own predicament. In general, writers sympathetic to Jameson have tended to maintain a Marxist perspective in which conspiracy represents a pastiche of hegemonic overthrow, thus rendering it just another form of ideological false consciousness. Theorists less taken with Marxist categories see conspiracy as an entirely rational (though incorrect) response to conditions of late modernity or even as potentially liberatory. Writers emphasizing that pernicious media content tends to fuel a conspiratorial mindset often emphasize the mediated aspects of information rather than the economics that lie behind these mediations. Both ideological analysis and academic writings on conspiracy theory argue that there is a gap between “what seems to be going on” and “what is actually going on,” and that this gap is maintained and widened by pernicious media messages. Research on ideology tends to see the purpose of pernicious media content as having an ultimately material source that is rooted in “real interests,” while research on conspiracies plays down these class aspects and questions whether any real interests exist that go beyond the exercise of political power.

The needs of informationally ill communities

The current thinking in misinformation studies owes something to all these approaches. But it owes an even more profound debt to two perspectives on information and journalism that emerged in the early 2000s, both of which are indebted to an “ecosystemic” perspective on information flows. One perspective sees information organizations and their audiences as approximating a natural ecosystem, in which different media providers contribute equally to the health of an information environment, which then leads to healthy citizens. The second perspective analyzes the flows of messages as they travel across an information environment, with messages becoming reshaped and distorted as they travel across an information network. 

Both of these perspectives owe a debt to the notion of the “informational citizen” that was popular around the turn of the century and that is best represented by the 2009 Knight Foundation report  The Information Needs of Communities  (Knight Foundation, 2009). This report pioneered the idea that communities were informational communities whose political health depended in large part on the quality of information these communities ingested. Additional reports by The Knight Foundation, the Pew Foundation, and this author (Anderson, 2010) looked at how messages circulated across these communities, and how their transformation impacted community health. 

It is a short step from these ecosystemic notions to a view of misinformation that sees it as a pollutant or even a virus (Anderson, 2020), one whose presence in a community turns it toward sickness or even political derangement. My argument here is that the current misinformation perspective owes less to its predecessors (with one key exception that I will discuss below) and more to concepts of information that were common at the turn of the century. The major difference between the concept of misinformation and earlier notions of informationally healthy citizens lies in the fact that the normative standard by which health is understood within information studies is crypto-normative. Where writings about journalism and ecosystemic health were openly liberal in nature and embraced notions of a rational, autonomous citizenry who just needed the right inputs in order to produce the right outputs, misinformation studies has a tendency to embrace liberal behavioralism without embracing a liberal political theory. What the political theory of misinformation studies is, in the end, deeply unclear.

I wrote earlier that misinformation studies owed more to notions of journalism from the turn of the century than it did to earlier traditions of theorizing. There is one exception to this, however. Misinformation studies, like propaganda analysis, is a radically de-structured notion of what information does. Buried within analysis of pernicious information there is

“A powerful cultural contradiction—the need to understand and explain social influence versus a rigid intolerance of the sociological and Marxist perspectives that could provide the theoretical basis for such an understanding. Brainwashing, after all, is ultimately a theory of ideology in the crude Marxian sense of “false consciousness.” Yet the concept of brainwashing was the brainchild of thinkers profoundly hostile to Marxism not only to its economic assumptions but also to its emphasis on structural, rather than individual, causality.” (Melley, 2008, p. 149)

For misinformation studies to grow in such a way that allows it to take its place among important academic theories of media and communication, several things must be done. The field needs to be more conscious of its own history, particularly its historical conceptual predecessors. It needs to more deeply interrogate its  informational-agentic  concept of what pernicious media content does, and perhaps find room in its arsenal for Marxist notions of hegemony or poststructuralist concepts of conspiracy. Finally, it needs to more openly advance its normative agenda, and indeed, take a normative position on what a good information environment would look like from the point of view of political theory. If this environment is a liberal one, so be it. But this position needs to be stated clearly.

Of course, misinformation studies need not worry about its academic bona fides at all. As the opening pages of this Commentary have shown, propaganda research was only briefly taken seriously as an important academic field. This did not stop it from being funded by the U.S. government to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars a year. While it is unlikely that media research will ever see that kind of investment again, at least by an American government, let’s not forget that geopolitical Great Power conflict has not disappeared in the four years that Donald Trump was the American president. Powerful state forces in Western society will have their own needs, and their own demands, for misinformation research. It is up to the scholarly community to decide how they will react to these temptations. 

• Mainstream Media
• / Propaganda

Cite this Essay

Anderson, C. W. (2021). Propaganda, misinformation, and histories of media techniques. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-64

Bibliography

Anderson, C. W. (2010). Journalistic networks and the diffusion of local news: The brief, happy news life of the Francisville Four. Political Communication , 27 (3), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.496710

Anderson, C. W. (2020, August 10). Fake news is not a virus: On platforms and their effects. Communication Theory , 31 (1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa008

Anderson, P. (1976). Considerations on Western Marxism . Verso.

Bratich, J. Z. (2008). Conspiracy panics: Political rationality and popular culture. State University of New York Press.

Corner, J. (2001). ‘Ideology’: A note on conceptual salvage. Media, Culture & Society , 23 (4), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344301023004006

Corner, J. (2016). ‘Ideology’ and media research. Media, Culture & Society , 38 (2), 265 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715610923

Downey, J. (2008). Recognition and renewal of ideology critique. In D. Hesmondhaigh & J. Toynbee (Eds.), The media and social theory (pp. 59–74). Routledge.

Downey, J., Titley, G., & Toynbee, J. (2014). Ideology critique: The challenge for media studies. Media, Culture & Society , 36 (6), 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714536113

Fenster (2008). Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture (Rev. ed.). University of Minnesota Press.

Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books. 

Hofstadter, R. (1964, November). The paranoid style in American politics. Harper’s Magazine.

Horn, E., & Rabinach, A. (2008). Introduction. In E. Horn (Ed.), Dark powers: Conspiracies and conspiracy theory in history and literature (pp. 1–8), New German Critique , 35 (1). https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033x-2007-015

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism . Duke University Press.

The Knight Foundation. (2009). Informing communities: Sustaining democracy in the digital age. https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Knight_Commission_Report_-_Informing_Communities.pdf

Melley, T. (2008). Brainwashed! Conspiracy theory and ideology in postwar United States. New German Critique , 35 (1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033X-2007-023

Nietzel, B. (2016). Propaganda, psychological warfare and communication research in the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. History of the Human Sciences , 29 (4 – 5), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695116667881

Pratt, R. (2003). Theorizing conspiracy. Theory and Society , 32 , 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023996501425

Rogin, M. P. (1986). The countersubversive tradition in American politics.  Berkeley Journal of Sociology,   31 , 1 –33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035372

Seldes, G., & Seldes, H. (1943). Facts and fascism. In Fact.

Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion: Communication research and psychological warfare, 1945–1960. Oxford University Press.

Williams, R. (1976).  Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society . Oxford University Press.

Zollmann, F. (2019). Bringing propaganda back into news media studies. Critical Sociology , 45 (3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517731134

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

• Introduction
• Finding articles & journal titles
• Media literacy
• Investigative journalism
• Photojournalism
• Sports journalism
• Warfare and journalism
• How mass media sees Journalists/Journalism
• Television news
• Ethnicity and journalism
• Women and journalism
• Alternative media
• Future of Media
• Internet resources
• Managing citations
• Scholarly communication This link opens in a new window

Subject Librarian

Other library resource(s)

• Freedom of the press: a global survey of media independence by Freedom House Call Number: Electronic resource This site gives you access to Freedom House's annual survey of press freedom around the world. The surveys from 2002 to the present are available online.

In the Library's collection

There are several subject headings you can use to find books and other resources on censorship . The following subject headings are helpful:

• freedom of the press The call number range is KF 4770 through KF 4775 located on Berry Level 4 .
• government and the press
• press and politics
• journalism political aspects

Introductory reading(s)

Selected book titles

Finding articles

To find articles on censorship, you can search in Communication and Mass Media Complete ( CMMC ), Web of Science or the search box at the top of the page.

Internet resource(s)

• << Previous: Television news
• Next: Ethnicity and journalism >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 10:31 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/journalism

Submissions

• Other Journals

A History of Censorship in the United States

Author _ Jennifer Elaine Steele ( [email protected] ), Assistant Professor, School of Library and Information Science, The University of Southern Mississippi

Censorship is a centuries-old issue for the United States. The importance of intellectual freedom and the freedom of speech is particularly evident in libraries, organizations dedicated to the access and spread of information. Issues regarding censorship and intellectual freedom have even reached the US Supreme Court. The following essay serves as a history of censorship in the United States, particularly in its libraries, and how the same issues of censorship have now transitioned into the digital age.

T hroughout the history of the United States, there are many examples of censorship and censorship attempts. Censorship is often viewed as a violation of the First Amendment and the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is particularly pertinent to libraries, as it “encompasses not only a right to express oneself, but also a right to access information” (Oltmann 2016a, 153). The First Amendment is a common argument made by advocates against the act of censorship (Lambe 2002). As Pinnell-Stephens (2012) writes, “The basis of intellectual freedom in libraries lies in the First Amendment” (xi). However, interpretation of the First Amendment is not concrete, and throughout US history, courts have attempted to decide what freedoms are actually protected under the First Amendment. At the highest level, the US Supreme Court has heard many cases dealing with the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, which can also be relevant to libraries since they attempt to provide an environment of free expression and accessibility.

Many definitions of censorship have been proposed over the years. The American Library Association (ALA) defines censorship as a “change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes” (ALA 2016). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), censorship is “an action utilized in order to prohibit access to books or information items because their content is considered dangerous or harmful to their readers” (28). Knox (2014) describes censorship as “an amalgamation of practices, including the redaction of text in a document, cutting pages out of a book, or denying access to materials” (741). While many definitions of censorship have been used, according to Oppenheim and Smith (2004), “the general sentiment behind most definitions is that something is withheld from access by another” (160).

Nineteenth-Century Beginnings: Obscenity and the Censorship of the US Postal Service

One of the oldest, and most commonly cited, reasons behind many book challenges and censorship attempts in the United States is that the book or other material contains obscenity. As Wachsberger (2006) writes, “The history of books censored for depicting sexual acts—whether the chosen word was ‘pornography,’ ‘erotica,’ or ‘obscenity’—is a fascinating ride through our country’s court system” (vii). An early case dealing with the issue of obscenity is Rosen v. United States (1896), in which the defendant allegedly used the US Postal Service to send material that was deemed “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). In their ruling, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in the notable British case Regina v. Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended “‘to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall’” ( Rosen v. United States 1896, at 43). The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

In 1873, the US Congress passed the Comstock Act (1873), which made it a crime to knowingly mail obscene materials or advertisements and information about obscene materials, abortion, or contraception (de Grazia 1992). It is notable that while it has roots dating back to 1775 and an original intention of supporting the concept of intellectual freedom, the Comstock Act (1873) is just one of many examples of the Postal Service enacting laws and acting as a censor throughout its history (Darling 1979; Paul and Schwartz 1961). 1

One seminal example of censorship on the grounds of obscenity involves James Joyce’s most famous work, Ulysses (1922). Prior to the novel’s US publication, the work was serialized in the literary magazine The Little Review . Following this first publication of Ulysses , three issues of The Little Review were seized and burned by the US Postal Service on the grounds that its content was deemed “obscene.” A complaint was made regarding a particular chapter that was published in the magazine, and after a trial the publishers were convicted and fined (Baggett 1995). Publication of Ulysses in the United States stopped for more than a decade (Gillers 2007). It was not until the federal district court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933 that the novel could legally be published in the United States (Gillers 2007). In the ruling for the case, Judge John M. Woolsey established the important notion that an entire work, rather than just a portion of it, should be considered for the work to be declared obscene ( United States v. One Book Called Ulysses 1933).

The Supreme Court ruled in the case Roth v. United States (1957) that obscenity was not protected under the First Amendment. It also developed what came to be known as the Roth test for obscenity, which was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest” ( Roth v. United States 1957, at 489). However, the Roth test definition of obscenity proved difficult to apply. In the Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), which addressed whether states had the right to ban films they deemed obscene, Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that while he could not precisely define pornography, “I know it when I see it” ( Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964, at 197).

The Roth test was eventually expanded with the case Miller v. California (1973). Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if

“(a) . . . ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . . (b) . . . the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) . . . the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” ( Miller v. California 1973, at 39)

Many people confuse obscenity, which is not protected under the First Amendment, with pornography, which is protected under the First Amendment (Pinnell-Stephens 1999). The exception to this would be child pornography. The First Amendment is a common argument for those against censorship, and many challenges and censorship attempts involve materials targeted toward children and young adults. However, the First Amendment argument is not as strong when the censorship pertains to young children (Magnuson 2011), as many laws are in place for the purpose of protecting children. The Supreme Court ruled in the cases New York v. Ferber (1982) and Osborne v. Ohio (1990) that child pornography is not subject to the Miller test and that the government’s interest in protecting children from abuse was crucial.

Censorship in the United States began with both the Postal Service and public libraries, gaining traction throughout the nineteenth century.

Censorship in Public Libraries

In the history of public libraries, censorship is “as old as the public library movement itself” (Thompson 1975, 1). As Wiegand (2015) put it, “Censorship was never far from public library practices” (36). In his 1973 article “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History,” Michael Harris gives a history of the American public library, with the Boston Public Library beginning the public library movement in the 1850s. Since their inception, American public libraries have faced censorship issues (Wiegand 2015).

Censorship and Race

Race and ethnic background have been factors in censorship since the beginning of the public library movement. For the earliest public libraries in the 1850s, librarians and library trustees were often white, upper class, educated males, who were often the public library’s target demographic (Harris 1973). However, the 1890s saw a huge influx of immigrants into the United States (Harris 1973). Between 1893 and 1917, 7 million immigrants arrived from southern and eastern Europe (Wiegand 2015). This caused people to fear for the “American way of life.” In response, public libraries began to offer programs and classes for immigrants with the purpose of “Americanizing” them (Harris 1973).

During the Carnegie era (1889–1917), Scottish-American businessman Andrew Carnegie gave $41 million to construct 1,679 public library buildings in 1,412 US communities (Bobinski 1968; Wiegand 2015). However, some communities rejected Carnegie grants, with varying justifications. Sometimes it was pride, sometimes it was class, and sometimes it was race (Wiegand 2015). This was particularly at issue in the segregated, Jim Crow-era South, where many Carnegie grants were rejected because community leaders believed a Carnegie Free Library would have to admit Black people (Wiegand 2015). 2

One southern public library that did accept a Carnegie grant was the Colored Branches of the Louisville Public Library in Louisville, Kentucky, which opened its first branch for Black patrons in 1905 (Wiegand 2015). The branch then moved into a new Carnegie building in 1908, followed by a second Black neighborhood receiving a Carnegie library in 1914 (Wiegand 2015). Largely because they were among the few places in segregated Louisville that welcomed and allowed Black people to gather, the public library at this time took on the role of the neighborhood social center (Wiegand 2015).

Another example of censorship in public libraries with racial influences came in 1901, when the H. W. Wilson Company began publishing its Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature . The Readers’ Guide was an index of periodicals public libraries would often use as suggestions for their collections. However, periodicals issued by marginalized groups such as African or Hispanic Americans could not be indexed in the Readers’ Guide . This put them at a distinct disadvantage, as then public libraries tended to not subscribe to them (Wiegand 2015).

An important point in the history of public libraries is their integration. After World War II, efforts began to integrate public libraries in the American South (Wiegand 2015). In response to these efforts to integrate, “librarians across the country were mostly silent, and largely absent” (Wiegand 2015, 172). In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” was no longer legal. During this time, public libraries in the South were frequent sites of racial protests. Examples include a 1960 sit-in at the Greenville Public Library in South Carolina led by a teenage Jesse Jackson, and, in 1961, a peaceful protest led by members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at the public library in Jackson, Mississippi (Wiegand 2015). While these protests were predominant in the South, they occurred at public libraries all across the country, including the North (Wiegand 2015), making desegregation a pivotal point in the history of American public libraries.

Racial and ethnic background continues to be an influencer on censorship in libraries, with multiple researchers exploring public views regarding the inclusion of racially charged materials in a library’s collection. From 1976 to 2006, the General Social Survey asked randomly selected national samples of US adults age eighteen and older whether they would support removing a book spouting racist beliefs targeted at African Americans from the public library, with multiple researchers using statistical tests to analyze the data collected from the survey (Burke 2011; Bussert 2012).

In their analysis of the survey results, researchers found an overwhelming majority of the survey’s participants did not support removing the racist book from the library (Burke 2011), and the most influential predictors of support for book removal from the public library were found to be education level, religious affiliation, and race (Bussert 2012). Regarding education level, Bussert (2012) found that “the lower one’s education level, the higher their support for removal of the racist book from the public library” (117). Regarding religious affiliation, Protestants showed the highest level of support for removal, followed by Catholics, Jews, and respondents unaffiliated with religion (Bussert 2012). Regarding race, Bussert (2012) found that “while half of African American respondents supported removing a racist book, only one-third of white respondents did” (117).

Throughout the history of public libraries, censorship stemming from racial or ethnic background has been present. This censorship has come in various forms, including segregated library branches in the first part of the twentieth century, or the suppression of books or other materials spouting racist beliefs that occurs even to this day. When faced with a censorship challenge of this nature, it is important for librarians to remember the Library Bill of Rights and other ethical codes that guide them as a profession and encourage them to refrain from censoring such materials and ideas from their library.

Censorship and Religion

Censorship can also stem from religious beliefs (Wiegand 2015). According to Prebor and Gordon (2015), “Religiously motivated censorship is one of the most prevalent forms of censorship and has existed since antiquity” (28). Religious texts such as the Bible, the Talmud, and the Quran have all been censored at some time (Prebor and Gordon 2015). Even popular releases such as J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series have been censored on religious grounds due to the books’ portrayal of witchcraft (Bald 2011).

In the history of public libraries, censorship due to religious reasons can be predominantly seen at the turn of the twentieth century with the tension between public libraries and the Roman Catholic Church. In 1895, Catholics in Portland, Oregon, complained that their public library subscribed to no Catholic magazines (Wiegand 2015). In addition, of the 1,400 books at that time that the Dewey Decimal System classified as religion, none were by a Catholic author. This eventually led to a priest in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to say that because Catholics paid taxes to support the library, they should be represented on the library board and that any books attacking the church should be removed (Wiegand 2015).

In 1938, a Catholic organization known as the National Organization for Decent Literature (NODL) was established to combat the publication and sale of lewd magazines and brochure literature (Wiegand 2015). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has a long history with censorship. In 1559 the first index of forbidden books was published by Pope Paul IV. The index was used for hundreds of years, with the final edition being published in 1948 and officially being abolished in 1966 (Prebor and Gordon 2015).

Another example of censorship challenges grounded in religious beliefs involves the book The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, a novel many people consider to be sacrilegious. The book was first published in English in 1960 and regularly appears on banned book lists (Bald 2006). In Santa Ana, California, a patron checked out the book and then renewed it. As soon as the book was returned, it was promptly checked out and then renewed by a friend of the original patron. The librarian soon discovered they were members of a group determined to keep the book out of circulation (Wiegand 2015). Protests of the book also occurred in Long Beach, Pasadena, Fullerton, and Newport Beach. In San Diego, several citizens claimed that the book was pornographic, defamed Christ, and was part of a Communist conspiracy (Wiegand 2015).

Libraries will often serve a patron base with differing religious views. This is something for librarians to be mindful of when making selection decisions. While the ALA’s values would support having materials in the collection from a variety of differing religious viewpoints, it is important to note that there are Christian libraries and other faith-based library institutions with unique user needs that the collection development policy should address (Gehring 2016; Hippenhammer 1993; Hippenhammer 1994). It is important for the collection development policy of any library to support the representation of differing religious viewpoints as well as the needs of the community it serves.

Censorship of Fiction

Public libraries began with the purpose of serving an aristocratic class as elitist centers for scholarly research (Harris 1973). However, this changed toward the end of the nineteenth century, when public libraries began to cater to the “common man.” Libraries began to strive to assist the poor with educating themselves and pulling themselves up to a higher socioeconomic class (Harries 1973). While public libraries have historically encouraged “self-improvement reading” (Wiegand 2015, 38), this did not always align with the desires of the public. Since the beginning of the public library movement, trends have shown the public’s taste for the current, popular fiction of the time (Wiegand 2015).

One example of fiction dominating a library’s circulation happened at the Boston Public Library. In 1859, the Boston Public Library found out firsthand that if the library did not provide the popular stories the public valued, whether or not they were deemed valuable by librarians or other cultural authorities, then circulation would decrease (Wiegand 2015). In 1875, The Literary World reported on the circulation of the different Boston Public Library branches. According to The World , fiction accounted for 79% of the East Boston branch circulation, 78% for South Boston, and 81% for Roxbury (Wiegand 2015).

While late-nineteenth-century American public libraries carried popular fiction in their collections to keep people coming back, this did not stop censorship attacks against it (Wiegand 2015). One tactic used by librarians around the turn of the century to limit access to fiction was through the use of closed versus open stacks. In the beginning of the public library movement, library stacks were closed and a patron would have to go to the desk to ask the librarian or other staff member to retrieve the book for which they were looking. After 1893, libraries began to open their stacks to the public. However, librarians would regularly put nonfiction out in the open stacks but keep fiction in the closed stacks as a way to get the public to read more nonfiction and less fiction (Wiegand 2015).

Another tactic libraries used to encourage the reading of nonfiction as opposed to fiction was moving from a one-book-per-visit rule to a two-book-per-visit rule that allowed patrons to check out only one fiction book as one of their two books (Wiegand 2015). This tactic continued even after World War I. Prior to the war, the Los Angeles Public Library permitted patrons to check out three books at a time, and all could be fiction. After the war, the library extended the limit to five books, but only two of the books could be fiction (Wiegand 2015). However, this rule had little effect. While nonfiction circulation did increase by 7%, fiction still accounted for 74% of the library’s total circulation (Wiegand 2015).

While some libraries used tactics such as placing fiction in closed stacks or enforcing limits on the number of fiction books a patron could borrow at a time, other public libraries would outright ban fiction from their collections (Wiegand 2015). The public library in Germantown, Pennsylvania, refused to stock any fiction (Wiegand 2015). The Groton (Connecticut) Public Library moved into new quarters in 1867, and the librarian declared “there would be no fiction at all in the Library” (Wiegand 2015, 41). Whether libraries utilized closed versus open stacks to limit the public’s access to fiction, placed limits on how many fiction books a patron could borrow from the library at one time, or outright banned fiction from their collections altogether, the war against fiction is a pivotal example of censorship in the history of public libraries.

Censorship of Paperbacks

After World War II, to maximize sales, book publishers began to issue more paperbacks with alluring covers (Wiegand 2015). Merchants would then place these paperbacks on newsstands with their often suggestive covers out to attract customers (Wiegand 2015). Some people at this time claimed that the suggestive covers affected the moral standards of the country and led to increased juvenile delinquency. Some even argued it was a Communist conspiracy to take over the country (Wiegand 2015).

Several groups got involved in the issue, including the NODL. In the early 1950s, the NODL targeted paperbacks and comic books, even publishing lists it disapproved of in its monthly publication, The Priest (Wiegand 2015). NODL committees would even monitor newsstands and pressure the owners to stop selling these popular paperbacks (Wiegand 2015). Many librarians at the time either agreed with or were intimidated by the NODL and often refused to carry paperbacks in their collections (Wiegand 2015).

Wiegand (2015) says of this refusal by libraries in the 1950s to carry paperback books, which were significantly cheaper than hardbacks, “The library profession identified with that part of the publishing industry that favored hardbounds over the softcovers that newsstands and drugstores sold largely to working-class readers” (169). This period marks an important point in the history of public libraries and the profession of librarianship in regards to censorship, particularly as it is an example of a large portion of the librarianship profession acting as censors themselves.

Censorship of Communist Materials

Public libraries in the 1950s faced pressure to censor materials believed to be spreading Communist ideas and beliefs (Wiegand 2015). Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy capitalized on America’s Cold War fears about the Soviet Union and the Communist movement. He accused multiple civic agencies and institutions, including libraries, of spreading Communist ideas. He specifically targeted libraries that the recently established US Information Agency had opened at US embassies abroad. He claimed that these libraries had 30,000 Communist books, and the effects of his claims were felt throughout the American library community (Wiegand 2015).

Many librarians at this time proceeded to withdraw controversial materials from their libraries whether it was because they believed in McCarthy’s message, or they simply wanted to save their jobs. However, some librarians did resist McCarthy and his message (Wiegand 2015). When the Boston Herald attacked the Boston Public Library for stocking books it claimed promoted Communism, a local Catholic newspaper in Boston as well as numerous citizens joined the librarians in a successful protest (Wiegand 2015). While some librarians adhered to the principles set forth in the Library Bill of Rights and some succumbed to pressure, the fear of Communism in America in the 1950s greatly impacted the entire American library community.

While censorship has always been a part of the history of American public libraries, it also has a long history of being present within the schools educating the nation’s children.

Censorship in Schools

The Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding the First Amendment rights of students. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), two students whose religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses, forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, were expelled from school for refusing to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled in favor of the students ( West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette 1943).

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), three students, including siblings John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, as well as their friend Christopher Eckhardt, were expelled after they wore black armbands to school as a symbolic protest of the Vietnam War (ALA 2006). The Supreme Court held that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate” ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969, at 506) and that “the First Amendment protects public school students’ rights to express political and social views” (ALA 2006, para. 25).

A pivotal Supreme Court ruling regarding First Amendment rights and censorship in school libraries was Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dsitrict No. 26 v. Pico (1982). In 1975, members of the school board from the Island Trees School District ordered that certain books be removed from high school and junior high school libraries on the grounds that the books were “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 857). Some of the books to be removed were Slaughterhouse Five , Best Short Stories of Negro Writers , Go Ask Alice , and Down These Mean Streets (Molz 1990). A high school student named Steven Pico led a group of students who sued the board, claiming a denial of their First Amendment rights. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where a closely divided Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the students (ALA 2006).

In the ruling for the case, Justice William Brennan cited both Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) as well as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) and stated that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion’” ( Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico 1982, at 872).

In the case Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003), the school board of the Cedarville, Arkansas, school district voted to restrict students’ access to the popular Harry Potter book series on the grounds that the books promoted “disobedience and disrespect for authority” ( Counts v. Cedarville School District 2003, at 1002) and dealt with “witchcraft” (at 1002) and “the occult” (at 1002). After the vote, students in the Cedarville school district were required to obtain a signed permission slip from a parent or guardian before they would be allowed to borrow any of the Harry Potter books from school libraries (ALA 2006). The district court overturned the board’s decision and ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation on the grounds that “the restrictions violated students’ First Amendment right to read and receive information” (ALA 2006, para. 23).

Twentieth-Century Changes: Movies, Music, and More

Throughout the twentieth century, technological advances changed the way Americans enjoyed their entertainment, whether through films, music recordings, or even the rise of new literary genres such as comic books. As each new form of entertainment rose in popularity, the censorship attempts became more prevalent.

Censorship of the Motion Picture Industry

Censorship of the motion picture industry became prevalent with the Motion Picture Production Code in the 1930s. The Motion Picture Production Code was the set of moral guidelines for the industry that was applied to most motion pictures released by major studios in the United States from 1930 to 1968. It was also known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945 (Miller, 1994). Hays was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1918 to 1921, and served as the US Postmaster General from 1921 to 1922, under President Warren G. Harding (Allen 1959). Several studios in Hollywood recruited Hays in 1922 to help rehabilitate Hollywood’s image after several risqué films and a series of off-camera scandals involving Hollywood stars tarnished the motion picture industry image (Miller 1994). Hays resigned as Postmaster General on January 14, 1922, to become president of the newly formed MPPDA (AP 1922).

The MPPDA, which later became known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), adopted the Production Code in 1930 and began strictly enforcing it in 1934 (Miller 1994). The Production Code clearly spelled out what content was acceptable and what content was not acceptable for motion pictures produced in the United States. Content restricted by the Production Code included “scenes of passion” unless essential to a film’s plot, “sex perversion,” adultery, “indecent” dancing, and white slavery (AP 1930, 3). The Production Code was adhered to well into the 1950s, and then with the emergence of television, influence of foreign films, and directors who would push the envelope, 3 the Code began to weaken. In 1968, the Production Code was replaced with the MPAA film rating system (Miller 1994).

Censorship of the Comic Book Industry

Controversy regarding comic books and their content surfaced shortly after their debut in the 1930s. The first group to object to comics was educators, who saw comics as a “bad influence on students’ reading abilities and literary tastes” (Nyberg n.d., para. 3). Church and civic groups objected to “immoral” content such as scantily clad women and the glorification of villains. The NODL added comics to the materials it evaluated (Nyberg n.d., para. 4).

After World War II, there was a rise in the popularity of horror comics, bringing a third group into the comic book debate: mental health experts. With a focus on juvenile delinquency, noted New York City psychiatrist Dr. Fredric Wertham campaigned to ban the sales of comics to children, arguing that “children imitated the actions of comic book characters” and that “the content desensitized children to violence” (Nyberg n.d., para. 5).

In September 1954, the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) was formed in response to a widespread public concern over the gory and horrific content that was common in comic books of the time (“Horror” 1954). This led to the Comics Code Authority (CCA) and regulations on content published in comic books. Comic book publishers that were members would submit their comics to the CCA, which would screen them for adherence to its Code. If the book was found to be in compliance, then they would authorize the use of their seal on the book’s cover (Hajdu 2008). Pressure from the CCA and the use of its seal led to the censorship of comic books across the country.

Even before the adoption of the CCA, some cities had organized public burnings and bans on comic books (Costello 2009). The city councils of both Oklahoma City and Houston passed city ordinances banning crime and horror comics (“Horror” 1954). The movement against comics even infiltrated public libraries, with the Charlotte (North Carolina) Public Library system refusing to carry them in its collections in 1951 (Wiegand 2015).

These regulations were devastating for the comic book industry. According to Hajdu (2008), work for comic book cartoonists dried up, with more than 800 creators losing their jobs. The number of comic book titles published dropped from 650 titles in 1954 to 250 in 1956 (Hajdu 2008). Over time, the industry was able to recover as publishers left the CCA one by one. In January 2011, Archie Comics, the last remaining publisher still participating, announced they were leaving the CCA, rendering the CCA and its Code defunct (Rogers 2011).

Censorship of the Recording Industry

The music recording industry has faced censorship stemming from the use of Parental Advisory labels. The labels are placed on music and other audio recordings if the recording uses excessive profanities or inappropriate references. The intention of the labels is to alert parents of material that is potentially unsuitable for younger children (Cole 2010).

The idea for the labels was first outlined by Tipper Gore, wife of Al Gore and eventual Second Lady of the United States, and her advocacy group the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) in a 1984 letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and sixty-two record labels (Schonfeld 2015). The PMRC initially proposed a rating code: “Violent lyrics would be marked with a ‘V,’ Satanic or anti-Christian occult content with an ‘O,’ and lyrics referencing drugs or alcohol with a ‘D/A’” (Schonfeld 2015). With little response, the PMRC then proposed a generic label warning of lyric content. The RIAA eventually gave in and agreed to put warning stickers on albums, with early versions of Parental Advisory labels first used in 1985 (Schonfeld 2015). In 1990, “Banned in the USA” by the rap group 2 Live Crew became the first album to bear the “black and white” Parental Advisory label (Schonfeld 2015, para. 10).

Parental Advisory labels were originally affixed on physical cassettes and then compact discs. Now, with the rise of digital music through online music stores and music streaming, the label is usually embedded in the digital artwork of albums that are purchased online (Cole 2010). While the evolution of digital music has reduced the Parental Advisory label system’s efficacy, use of the labels has nevertheless impacted the recording industry, in some cases leading to censorship of the recordings. Many major retailers that distribute music, including Walmart, have enacted policies that do not allow the selling of any recordings containing the label in their stores (Cole 2010).

Censorship of LGBTQ Materials

Censorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ) materials has occurred throughout the twentieth century and continues to face censorship today. The American Library Association has seen an increase in organized, coordinated challenges to LGBTQ materials and services in libraries (ALA 2020), and homosexuality was cited as a reason for censorship in many analyses of censorship trends over the last several decades (Woods 1979; Harer and Harris 1994; Sova 1998; Doyle 2000; Foerstel 2002; Karolides, Bald, and Sova 2005). In addition, some state legislatures even limit state funding for libraries that do not agree to restrictions on certain controversial LGBTQ materials (Barack 2005; Oder 2006).

Censorship of LGBTQ materials in libraries has been a common area of research, both for school libraries (Coley 2002; Garry 2015; Hughes-Hassell, Overberg, and Harris 2013; Maycock 2011; Oltmann 2016b; Sanelli and Perreault 2001) and public libraries (Burke 2008; Cook 2004; Curry 2005; Stringer-Stanback 2011). Research has shown that while gay-themed materials are often the subject of censorship, the country as a whole is becoming less conservative and is more open to finding such materials in their libraries (Burke 2008). Furthermore, a supportive community and administration is of utmost importance when building a quality, inclusive library collection (Garry 2015).

Despite these findings, LGBTQ individuals do often face harassment, discrimination, and even violence in society as a whole. Many LGBTQ young adults have learned to be secretive about their sexual identity for fear of rejection from their peers or even their families (Rauch 2011). This is particularly true for young adults who attend schools in small, less diverse, rural communities and communities with limited financial resources (Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz 2009). Those limited resources can be a particular drawback for public libraries, as they prevent them from circulating relevant, up-to-date materials (Van Buskirk 2005) that might increase awareness and tolerance of LGBTQ individuals and issues. While “partisan or doctrinal disapproval” (ALA 2010, 49) plays a large role in these materials not being available where they are most needed, the fact remains that many librarians and information professionals in these areas simply do not have the funds to provide these materials, either to LGBTQ students or to those who surround them.

Much of the controversy over LGBTQ-themed literature and materials deals with their dissemination to children (Naidoo 2012). Kidd (2009) writes how the “censorship of children’s books has accelerated in the twentieth century, as the censorship of adult materials became less acceptable and as childhood was imagined more and more as a time of great innocence and vulnerability” (199). DePalma and Atkinson (2006) write that oftentimes children are considered to be innocent asexual beings, and therefore many believe they must be “protected from the dangerous knowledge of homosexuality” (DePalma and Atkinson 2006, 339). Parents frequently challenge books with LGBTQ themes, claiming they are not suitable for the child’s age group. This makes it difficult for families with LGBTQ members to access these materials. According to Wolf (1989), “Homophobia . . . still keeps most gay families hidden and accounts for the absence of information about them. It also keeps what information there is out of the library, especially the children’s room, and makes it difficult to locate through conventional research strategies,” (52).

One example of this occurred in Wichita Falls, Texas, and led to the federal case Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas (2000). Residents of Wichita Falls, Texas, who were members of a church sought removal of the two books Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate . The residents sought removal of the books because they disapproved of the books’ depictions of homosexuality. The City of Wichita Falls City Council then passed a resolution to restrict access to the books if a petition was able to get three hundred signatures asking for the restriction. A different group of citizens then filed suit after copies of the two books were removed from the children’s section of the library and placed on a locked shelf in the adult area ( Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas 2000). The District Court ruled that the city’s resolution permitting the removal of the two books improperly delegated governmental authority regarding selection decisions of books carried in the library and prohibited the city from enforcing the resolution (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019b).

As school libraries are often not safe spaces for LGBTQ teens, they will often seek out public libraries for resources related to their issues and identity questions (Curry 2005). However, as Curry’s study showed, not all reference librarians were even aware of relevant terminology—for example, “gay-straight alliance”—and were therefore unable to address the questions posed to them by the researchers regarding their LGBTQ collections. Some also seemed nervous or uncomfortable with the questions being posed to them (Curry 2005, 70). This not only hindered the search, but also raised the question of whether the librarians were maintaining objectivity about the nature of the materials (Curry 2005, 72).

Alvin M. Schrader’s 2009 article, “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries,” discusses the importance of including LGBTQ materials in libraries so that young people can turn to these materials for support. Schrader explains that librarians are avoiding building these collections and are claiming that their libraries do not serve people who need, or want, LGBTQ materials or that the library cannot afford to purchase those materials (107). Schrader challenges librarians to “foster diversity and resilience. They can create safe places. They can turn pain into opportunity, tolerance into celebration, despair into hope” (109). This message should empower librarians to resist the pressure to censor these materials in their libraries.

While some adults may feel that censoring certain materials from young people is a way of protecting them, it is in direct opposition of the ALA’s Freedom to Read Statement . Section 4 of the Freedom to Read Statement states, “There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression” (ALA 2010, 203). Parents, teachers, and librarians all have a responsibility to prepare young people for the diversity of experiences that they will be exposed to in life. Through both the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement , the ALA places the professional responsibility on librarians to provide the population with information that meets their needs, including the LGBTQ community.

The Internet and Twenty-First-Century Censorship

The question of what forms of communication are or are not protected under the First Amendment becomes even more complicated with the move into the digital age. The arrival of the internet brought a wave of new concerns, particularly about the safety of children. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed by Congress on February 1, 1996, and signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996. The CDA imposed criminal sanctions on anyone who knowingly

(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs. (CDA 1996)

The CDA marked Congress’s first attempt to regulate pornography on the internet. Parts of the law were eventually struck down by the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). In the case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against Janet Reno in her capacity as attorney general of the United States, claiming that parts of the CDA were unconstitutional. In the ruling on the case, a unanimous Supreme Court specifically extended the First Amendment to written, visual, and spoken expression posted on the internet ( Reno v. ACLU 1997). This case was significant as it was the first to bring the First Amendment into the digital age.

Another prominent case dealing with censorship and the internet was Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library (1998). In this case, a group of adult library patrons and individuals in Loudoun County, Virginia, brought a suit against library trustees, board members, and the director of the county’s public library, claiming that the library’s use of internet blocking software to block child pornography and obscene material was an infringement on their First Amendment rights ( Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library 1998). The library’s internet policy was highly restrictive in that it treated adults the same as children. The court ruled that, because the library decided to provide internet access, the First Amendment limited the library board’s discretion in placing content-based restrictions on access to the internet, therefore declaring the Loudoun County internet policy invalid (ALA 2006; Steele 2017; Steele 2019a).

In 1998, Congress passed its second attempt to regulate internet pornography, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which restricted access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the internet (COPA 1998). On June 29, 2004, in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , the Supreme Court ruled that the law was likely to be unconstitutional. The Court wrote, “filtering software may well be more effective than COPA is confirmed by the findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, a blue-ribbon commission created by Congress in COPA itself. Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors’ ability to gain access to harmful materials on the Internet” ( Ashcroft v. ACLU 2004, at 668).

On December 21, 2000, Congress passed into law the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The law requires K-12 schools and libraries in the United States to use internet filters to be eligible to receive e-rate federal funding (CIPA 2000). The law was later challenged by the ALA as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled that public libraries’ use of internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment free speech rights and that CIPA is constitutional ( United States v. ALA 2003).

Also related to censorship and the internet is the censorship of social media content. Companies like Facebook and Twitter rely on a growing team of employees to remove offensive material—a practice known as “content moderation”—from their sites (Chen 2014). While the content being removed, such as pornography and gore, can be disturbing, it is censorship nonetheless. In addition, with the public becoming increasingly reliant on social media for their access to news, some social media sites have come under fire for censoring their trending news stories. Facebook has been accused of censoring its trending news sidebar and purposely omitting stories from conservative news sites, though research contradicts these claims (Bowles and Thielman 2016). With the rise of social media, the censoring of social media content is an issue that is becoming increasingly relevant to today’s world.

As stated in the eighth edition of ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual (2010), “Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected” (xvii). For some librarians, it made them question the very ideals and core values that the profession stands for. Bosseller and Budd (2015) write, “The Internet’s entrance into the library changed (and challenged) many librarians’ commitment to intellectual freedom” (34). Regardless, the internet and its ability to more quickly and easily provide access to information like never before has ushered in a new era for librarianship.

Whether dealing with the issue of obscenity, the evolution of technology and the internet, or other free speech controversies, the question of what is protected under an individual’s First Amendment rights is an issue that is highly debated. First Amendment rights and the right to free speech is also of particular concern for libraries when dealing with issues of censorship.

Foucault writes in The History of Sexuality (1978) how “instances of muteness which, by dint of saying nothing, imposed silence. Censorship” (17). Censorship has been, is, and will continue to be one of the single most important issues for librarians. This silencing has kept society from talking about many issues, particularly issues that some find controversial or uncomfortable to discuss. While some people may find it hard to allow these controversial materials to continue to take up residency in their libraries, it is not up to them to decide how people should live their lives or what they should read.

Many librarians are not always in a position to take a proactive stance in enacting the Library Bill of Rights . This is sometimes caused by an inability to affect change, whether because of legislation, political and social norms, or financial shortcomings. However, in some cases, this is due to a lack of awareness of the extent, exact nature, and possible solutions to problems. By upholding professional guidelines set in the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights , Code of Ethics , and Freedom to Read Statement , librarians and information professionals can refrain from censorship and assist library users with their information needs to the best of their abilities.

Allen, Frederick Lewis. 1959. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s . New York: Harper & Row.

American Library Association (ALA). 2006. “Notable First Amendment Court Cases.” http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases .

———. 2010. Intellectual Freedom Manual (8th ed.). Chicago: ALA.

———. 2016. “Challenge Support.” http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport .

———. 2020. “State of America’s Libraries 2020: Issues and Trends.” http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2020/issues-trends .

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 542 U.S. 656, 124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690 (2004). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5352124576782659763&q=Ashcroft+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Associated Press (AP). 1922. “Hays to be Mogul in Silver Screen Realm.” San Antonio Express , January 15, p. 4.

———. 1930. “Producers Adopt Code of Conduct for Screen Shows.” Calgary Daily Herald , April 1, p. 3. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WyRkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WHsNAAAAIBAJ&dq=motion%20picture%20producers%20and%20distributors%20of%20america&pg=3606%2C4315324 .

Baggett, Holly. 1995. “The Trials of Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap.” In Susan Albertine, ed., A Living of Words: American Women in Print Culture (pp. 169-88). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Bald, Margaret. 2006. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , rev. ed. New York: Facts on File.

———. 2011. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds , 3rd ed. New York: Facts on File.

Barack, Lauren. 2005. “AL Lawmaker to Ban Pro-Gay Books.” School Library Journal 51(1): 24.

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico , 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11432514393725128521&q=Board+of+Education,+Island+Trees+Union+Free+School+District+No.+26+v.+Pico&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Bobinski, George S. 1968. “Carnegie Libraries: Their History and Impact on American Public Library Development.” ALA Bulletin 62(11): 1361-67.

Bossaller, Jenny S., and John M. Budd. 2015. “What We Talk About When We Talk About Free Speech.” Library Quarterly 85(1): 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/679024 .

Bowles, Nellie, and Sam Thielman. 2016. “Facebook Accused of Censoring Conservatives, Report Says.” Guardian , May 9. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news .

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12120372216939101759&q=Brown+v.+Board+of+Education&hl=en&as_sdt=6,25 .

Burke, Susan K. 2008. “Removal of Gay-Themed Materials from Public Libraries: Public Opinion Trends, 1973–2006.” Public Library Quarterly 27(3): 247-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616840802229552 .

Burke, Susan K. 2011. “Social Tolerance and Racist Materials in Public Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 49(4): 369-79. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.49n4.369 .

Bussert, Leslie. 2012. “Americans’ Tolerance of Racist Materials in Public Libraries Remained Steady Between 1976-2006.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 7(1): 116-19. https://doi.org/10.18438/B83313 .

Chen, Adrian. 2014. “The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed.” Wired , October 23. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/ .

Child Online Protection Act, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. C, Title XIV, 112 Stat. 2736 (1998). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/pdf/PLAW-104publ104.pdf .

Children’s Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554, Div. B, Title XVII, 114 Stat. 2763A-335 (2000). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ554/pdf/PLAW-106publ554.pdf .

Cole, Tom. 2010. “You Ask, We Answer: ‘Parental Advisory’ Labels-The Criteria and the History.” NPR , October 29. http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2010/10/29/130905176/you-ask-we-answer-parental-advisory---why-when-how .

Coley, Ken P. 2002. “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialists.” School Library Media Research 5.

Communication Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, Title V, 110 Stat. 133 (1996). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ104/html/PLAW-104publ104.htm .

Comstock Act, Ch. 258, § 2, 17 Stat. 599 (1873), repealed with amended provisions at 18 U.S.C. § 1461. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=017/llsl017.db&recNum=640 .

Cook, Jennifer Chance. 2004. “GLBTQ Teen Literature: Is it Out There in Indiana?” Indiana Libraries 23(2): 25-28.

Costello, Matthew J. 2009. Secret Identity Crisis: Comic Books and the Unmasking of Cold War America . New York: Continuum.

Counts v. Cedarville School District , 295 F. Supp. 2d 996 (W.D. Ark. 2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4899935302137642081&q=counts+v+cedarville+school+district&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Curry, Ann. 2005. “If I Ask, Will They Answer? Evaluating Public Library Reference Service to Gay and Lesbian Youth.” Reference & User Services Quarterly (1): 65-75.

Darling, Richard L. 1979. “Access, Intellectual Freedom and Libraries.” Library Trends 27: 315-26.

de Grazia, Edward. 1992. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius . New York: Random House.

DePalma, Renée, and Elizabeth Atkinson. 2006. “The Sound of Silence: Talking About Sexual Orientation and Schooling.” Sex Education 6(4): 333–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600981848 .

Doyle, Robert P. 2000. Banned Books: 2000 Resource Book . Chicago: ALA.

Foerstel, Herbert N. 2002. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. An Introduction . New York: Random House.

Garry, Candi Pierce. 2015. “Selection or Censorship? School Librarians and LGBTQ Resources.” School Libraries Worldwide 21(1): 73-90.

Gehring, Denise Rachel. 2016. “Faith-Informed Intellectual Freedom: An Annotated Bibliography.” Collection Building 35(2): 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-12-2015-0020 .

Gillers, Stephen. 2007. “A Tendency to Deprave and Corrupt: The Transformation of American Obscenity Law from Hicklin to Ulysses .” Washington University Law Review 85(2): 215-96.

Gorman, Michael. 2000. Our Enduring Values . Chicago: ALA.

Hajdu, David. 2008. The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America. New York: Picador.

Harer, John B., and Steven R. Harris. 1994. Censorship of Expression in the 1980s: A Statistical Survey . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Harris, Michael. 1973. “The Purpose of the American Public Library: A Revisionist Interpretation of History.” Library Journal (1876) 98: 2509-14.

Hippenhammer, Craighton. 1993. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part I.” Christian Librarian 37(1): 12-17.

———. 1994. “Patron Objections to Library Materials: A Survey of Christian College Libraries, Part II.” Christian Librarian 37(2), 40-47.

“Horror on the Newsstands.” 1954. Time , September 27, 64(13): 79.

Hughes-Hassell, Sandra, Elizabeth Overberg, and Shannon Harris. 2013. “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are School Libraries Providing Adequate Collections?” School Library Research 16: 1-18.

Jacobellis v. Ohio , 378 U.S. 184, 84 S. Ct. 1676, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1964). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15356452945994377133&q=Jacobellis+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Joyce, James. 1922. Ulysses . Paris, France: Sylvia Beach.

Karolides, Nicholas J., Margaret Bald, and Dawn B. Sova. 2005. 120 Banned Books: Censorship Histories of World Literature . New York: Checkmark Books.

Kidd, Kenneth. 2009. “Not Censorship but Selection: Censorship and/as Prizing.” Children’s Literature in Education 40(3): 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4 .

Knox, Emily. 2014. “‘The Books Will Still Be in the Library’: Narrow Definitions of Censorship in the Discourse of Challengers.” Library Trends 62(4): 740–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2014.0020 .

Kosciw, Joseph G., Emily A. Greytak, and Elizabeth M. Diaz. 2009. “Who, What, Where, When, and Why: Demographic and Ecological Factors Contributing to Hostile School Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7): 976-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1 .

Lambe, Jennifer L. 2002. “Dimensions of Censorship: Reconceptualizing Public Willingness to Censor.” Communication Law & Policy 7(2): 187–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326926CLP0702_05 .

Magnuson, Marta L. 2011. “Perceptions of Self and the ‘Other’: An Analysis of Challenges to And Tango Makes Three .” School Library Media Research 14: 1-9.

Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun , 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13796536557265673818&q=mainstream+loudoun&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Maycock, Angela. 2011. “Issues and Trends in Intellectual Freedom for Teacher Librarians: Where We’ve Come from and Where We’re Heading.” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 8-12.

McGilligan, Patrick. 2004. Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light . New York: Harper Perennial.

Miller, Frank. 1994. Censored Hollywood: Sex, Sin, and Violence on Screen . Atlanta, GA: Turner Publishing.

Miller v. California , 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313659&q=miller+v+california&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Molz, R. Kathleen. 1990. “Censorship: Current Issues in American Libraries.” Library Trends 39(1/2): 18-35.

Naidoo, Jamie Campbell. 2012. Rainbow Family Collections: Selecting and Using Children’s Books with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Content . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226851723986989726&q=new+york+v+ferber&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Nyberg, Amy Kiste. n.d. Comics Code History: The Seal of Approval . http://cbldf.org/comics-code-history-the-seal-of-approval/ .

Oder, Norman. 2006. “Oklahoma Targets Gay Books.” Library Journal (1976) 131(7): 20.

Oltmann, Shannon M. 2016a. “Intellectual Freedom and Freedom of Speech: Three Theoretical Perspectives.” Library Quarterly 86(2): 153-71. https://doi.org/10.1086/685402 .

———. 2016b. “‘They Kind of Rely on the Library’: School Librarians Serving LGBT Students.” Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults 7(1): 1-21.

Oppenheim, Charles, and Victoria Smith. 2004. “Censorship in Libraries.” Information Services & Use 24(4): 159-70. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2004-24401 .

Osborne v. Ohio , 495 U.S. 103, 110 S. Ct. 1691, 109 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4775063558409617777&q=Osborne+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Paul, James C. N., and Murray L. Schwartz. 1961. Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail . New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 1999. “Libraries: A Misunderstood American Value.” American Libraries 30(6): 76-81.

Pinnell-Stephens, June. 2012. Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Public Library: Scenarios from the Front Lines . Chicago: ALA.

Prebor, Gila, and David Gordon. 2015. “Collection Development and Censorship in Torah Studies Libraries in Israel.” Collection Management 40(1): 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2014.965862 .

Rauch, Elisabeth W. 2011. “GLBTQ Collections are for Every Library Serving Teens!” Teacher Librarian 39(1): 13–16.

Regina v. Hicklin , L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868).

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union . 521 U.S. 844, 117 S. Ct. 2329, 138 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1997). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=Reno+v.+American+Civil+Liberties+Union&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Rogers, Vaneta. 2011. “Archie Dropping Comics Code Authority Seal in February.” Newsarama , January 21. http://www.newsarama.com/6892-archie-dropping-comics-code-authority-seal-in-february.html .

Rosen v. United States , 161 U.S. 29, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606 (1896). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=835112669579863938&q=Rosen+v.+United+States&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625&q=Regina+v.+Hicklin&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Sanelli, Maria, and George Perreault. 2001. “‘I Could Be Anybody’: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Students in US Schools.” NASSP Bulletin 85(622): 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562209 .

Schonfeld, Zach. 2015. “Does the Parental Advisory Label Still Matter?” Newsweek , November 10. http://www.newsweek.com/does-parental-advisory-label-still-matter-tipper-gore-375607 .

Schrader, Alvin M. 2009. “Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries.” Feliciter 55(3): 107–9.

Sova, Dawn B. 1998. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds . New York: Facts On File.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2017. “Censorship in Public Libraries: An Analysis Using Gatekeeping Theory.” PhD diss., University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Steele, Jennifer E. 2019a. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Loudoun County, VA.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1660755 .

———. 2019b. “Cases of Censorship in Public Libraries: Wichita Falls, TX.” Public Library Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2019.1692324 .

Stringer-Stanback, Kynita. 2011. “Young Adult Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Non-Fiction Collections and Countywide Anti-Discrimination Policies.” Urban Library Journal 17(1): 1-27.

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas , 121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Texas 2000). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5196691822154706461&q=sund+v+city+of+wichita+falls+tex&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Thompson, Anthony Hugh. 1975. Censorship in Public Libraries in the United Kingdom During the Twentieth Century . Epping, England: Bowker.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&q=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines+Independent+Community+School+District&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. American Library Association, Inc. , 539 U.S. 194, 123 S. Ct. 2297, 156 L. Ed. 2d 221 (2003). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487&q=United+States+v.+American+Library+Association,+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5544515174778878625&q=United+States+v.+One+Book+Called+%E2%80%9CUlysses%E2%80%9D&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Van Buskirk, Jim. 2005. “Out of the Closet?” Library Journal 130(6): 62-65.

Wachsberger, Ken. 2006. Preface to Dawn B. Sova, Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds , rev. ed. (pp. vii–viii). New York: Facts on File.

Walker v. Popenoe , 149 F.2d 511 (D.C. Cir. 1945). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1236221801164736269&q=Walker+v.+Popenoe&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=West+Virginia+Board+of+Education+v.+Barnette&hl=en&as_sdt=206 .

Wiegand, Wayne A. 2015. Part of Our Lives: A People’s History of the American Public Library . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, Virginia L. 1989. “The Gay Family in Literature for Young People.” Children’s Literature in Education 20(1): 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01128040 .

Woods, L. B. 1979. A Decade of Censorship in America: The Threat to Classrooms and Libraries, 1966–1975 . Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

1 . In 1945, the Postmaster General of the United States, Frank Comerford Walker, filed suit against the author and publisher of a pamphlet, called “Preparing for Marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945), which he withheld from the mail on the grounds of the Comstock Act (1873). The pamphlet contained “detailed information and advice regarding the physical and emotional aspects of marriage” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 512). However, the Court ruled that the order barring the pamphlet from the mail without a hearing was “a violation of due process” ( Walker v. Popenoe 1945, at 513).

2 . While the segregation of libraries might not be considered censorship by all definitions, it does involve the exclusion of information from people of particular races. Under the American Library Association’s definition of censorship (ALA 2016), exclusion is considered to be a form of censorship.

3 . An example of a director pushing the envelope and working around Production Code guidelines was Alfred Hitchcock with his 1946 film Notorious . In the film, he worked around a three-second-kissing-only rule by having the actors break off every three seconds, while the entire sequence actually lasts two and a half minutes (McGilligan 2004, 376).

Figure 1. The Comics Code Seal. Courtesy of the Comic Code Authority.

Figure 2. Parental Advisory Label. Courtesy of Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.

• There are currently no refbacks.

ALA Privacy Policy

How Media Censorship Affects the News You See

• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

Censorship in Journalism

• Protecting a Person's Privacy

Avoiding Graphic Details and Images

Concealing national security information, advancing corporate interests, hiding political bias.

• B.A., Communications, Mercer University

Although you may not realize it, media censorship happens to your news on a regular basis. While news stories are often simply edited for length, in many cases subjective choices are being made about whether to keep some information from becoming public. Sometimes these decisions are made to safeguard a person's privacy, other times to protect media outlets from corporate or political fallout, and yet other times for concerns of national security.

Key Takeaways: Media Censorship in America

• Censorship the media is the suppression, alteration, or prohibition of written, spoken, or photographic information from books, newspapers, television and radio reports, and other media sources.
• Censorship may be used to suppress information considered obscene, pornographic, politically unacceptable, or a threat to national security.
• Censorship may be carried out by governments, businesses, and academic institutions.
• Some uses of censorship, such as protecting the identity of crime victims or to prevent libel, are not controversial.
• While most countries have laws against censorship, those laws are filled with loopholes and are often challenged in court.
• It is not against the law for the authors, publishers, or other creators of information censoring their own works 

Censorship Definition 

Censorship is the alteration or suppression of speech, writing, photographs, or other forms of information based on the opinion that such material is subversive, obscene , pornographic, politically unacceptable , or otherwise harmful to the public welfare. Both governments and private institutions may carry out censorship for claimed reasons such as national security, to prevent hate speech , to protect children and other protected groups , to restrict political or religious opinion, or to prevent libel or slander .

The history of censorship dates back to 399 BC, when Greek philosopher, Socrates , after fighting off attempts by the Greek government to censor his teachings and opinions, was executed by drinking hemlock for attempting to corrupt young Athenians. More recently, censorship in the form of book burnings was conducted by the military dictatorship of Chile led by General Augusto Pinochet in the aftermath of the 1973 Chilean coup d'etat . In ordering the books burned, Pinochet hoped to prevent the spread of information that conflicted with his campaign to “extirpate the Marxist cancer” of the previous regime.

In 1766, Sweden became the first country to enacted the official first law banning censorship. While many modern countries have laws against censorship, none of these laws are ironclad and are often challenged as unconstitutional attempts to restrict certain rights, such as the freedoms of speech and expression . For example, the censorship of photographs deemed to be pornographic is often challenged by persons who consider the images to be an acceptable form of artistic expression. There are no laws preventing authors, publishers, or other information creators from self-censoring their own works. 

Journalists make difficult choices every day about what to share and what to hold back. Not only that, but they often experience pressure from outside forces to suppress information. It's important for the public to be informed about the choices those who deliver the news face, and why they might decide to keep certain information private or not. Here are five of the most common reasons for censorship in the media.

Protecting a Person's Privacy

This is probably the least controversial form of media censorship. For instance, when a minor commits a crime, their identity is concealed to protect them from future harm—so they aren't turned down from getting a college education or a job, for instance. That changes if a minor is charged as an adult, as in the case of violent crime.

Most media outlets also conceal the identity of rape victims , so those people don't have to endure public humiliation. That was not the case for a brief period in 1991 at NBC News when it decided to identify the woman accusing William Kennedy Smith (part of the powerful Kennedy clan) of raping her. After much public backlash, NBC later reverted to the common practice of secrecy.

Journalists also protect their anonymous sources from having their identity exposed for fear of retaliation. This is especially important when informants are individuals highly placed in governments or corporations who have direct access to important information.

Every day, someone commits a heinous act of violence or sexual depravity. In newsrooms across the country, editors have to decide whether saying a victim "was assaulted" suffices in describing what happened.

In most instances, it does not. So a choice has to be made on how to describe the details of a crime in a way that helps the audience understand its atrocity without offending readers or viewers, especially children.

It's a fine line. In the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, the way he killed more than a dozen people was considered so sick that the graphic details were part of the story.

That was also true when news editors were faced with the sexual details of President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky and the accusations of sexual harassment Anita Hill made about then-U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas. Words that no editor had ever thought of printing or a newscaster had ever considered uttering were necessary to explain the story.

Those are the exceptions. In most cases, editors will cross out information of an extremely violent or sexual nature, not to sanitize the news, but to keep it from offending the audience.

The U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic operations function with a certain amount of secrecy. That confidentiality is regularly challenged by whistleblowers , anti-government groups or others who want to lift the lid on various aspects of the U.S. government.

In 1971, The New York Times published what are commonly called the Pentagon Papers , secret Defense Department documents detailing the problems of American involvement in the Vietnam War in ways the media had never reported. The Richard Nixon administration went to court in a failed attempt to keep the leaked documents from being published.

Decades later, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange came under fire for posting more than a quarter-million secret U.S. documents, many involving national security. When The New York Times published these U.S. State Department papers, the U.S. Air Force responded by blocking the newspaper's website from its computers.

These examples show that media owners often have a tense relationship with the government. When they approve stories containing potentially embarrassing information, government officials often try to censor it. Those in the media have the difficult responsibility of balancing the interests of national security with the public's right to know.

Media companies are supposed to serve the public interest. Sometimes that's at odds with the conglomerate owners who control traditional media voices.

Such was the case when The New York Times reported that executives from MSNBC owner General Electric and Fox News Channel owner News Corporation decided it wasn't in their corporate interests to allow on-air hosts Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly to trade on-air attacks. While the jabs seemed mostly personal, there was news that came out of them.

The Times reported that O'Reilly uncovered that General Electric was doing business in Iran. Although legal, GE later said it had stopped. A cease-fire between the hosts probably wouldn't have produced that information, which was newsworthy despite the apparent motivation for getting it.

In another example, cable TV giant Comcast faced a unique charge of censorship. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission approved its takeover of NBC Universal, Comcast hired FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who had voted for the merger.

While some had already publicly denounced the move as a conflict of interest, a single tweet is what unleashed Comcast's wrath. A worker at a summer film camp for teenage girls questioned the hiring through Twitter and Comcast responded by yanking $18,000 in funding for the camp.

The company later apologized and offered to restore its contribution. Camp officials say they want to be able to speak freely without being hushed by corporations.

Critics often lambast media for having a political bias . While viewpoints on the op-ed pages are clear, the link between politics and censorship is harder to spot.

The ABC news program "Nightline" once devoted its broadcast to reading the names of more than 700 U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq. What appeared to be a solemn tribute to military sacrifice was interpreted as a politically motivated, anti-war stunt by Sinclair Broadcast Group, which didn't allow the program to be seen on the seven ABC stations it owned.

Ironically, a media watchdog group called out Sinclair itself for labeling 100 members of Congress "censorship advocates" when they raised concerns to the FCC about Sinclair's plans to air the film, "Stolen Honor." That production was blasted for being propaganda against then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

Sinclair responded by saying it wanted to air the documentary after the major networks refused to show it. In the end, bowing to pressure on several fronts, the company aired a revised version that only included parts of the film.​

Communist countries that once stopped the free flow of information may have largely disappeared, but even in America, censorship issues keep some news from reaching you. With the explosion of citizen journalism and internet platforms, the truth may have an easier way of getting out. But, as we have seen, these platforms have brought their own challenges in the era of "fake news."

Updated by Robert Longley  

• Censorship in the United States
• Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson
• Freedom of the Press and Student Newspapers
• What Is Prior Restraint? Definition and Examples
• Committee on Public Information, America's WWI Propaganda Agency
• Timeline of the Freedom of the Press in the United States
• The Espionage Act of 1917: Definition, Summary, and History
• Kids' Book Censorship: The Who and Why
• Controversial and Banned Books
• Censorship and Book Banning in America
• The Harry Potter Controversy
• Presidential Executive Privilege
• What Is Sedition? Definition and Examples
• National Security Definition and Examples
• Banned Books: History and Quotes
• What Is an Ombudsman?

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

12.4: Censorship and Freedom of Speech

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 155685

Learning Objectives

• Explain the FCC’s process of classifying material as indecent, obscene, or profane.
• Describe how the Hay’s Code affected 20th-century American mass media.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are “bleeped” out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If you’ve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a “clean” version of a movie on an airplane, you’ve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in and of the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”“First Amendment—Religion and Expression,” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ . Under this definition, the term “speech” extends to a broader sense of “expression,” meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

Classifying Material as Indecent, Obscene, or Profane

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material has the following characteristics:

• Causes the average person to have lustful or sexual thoughts
• Depicts lawfully offensive sexual conduct
• Lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography.Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html. “Indecent” material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material has the following characteristics:

• Contains graphic sexual or excretory depictions
• Dwells at length on depictions of sexual or excretory organs
• Is used simply to shock or arouse an audience

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it.Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html.

These classifications symbolize the media’s long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, email, fax, telephone, or the agency’s website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should “contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used.”Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html. Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station.Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html. If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment.Federal Communications Commission, “Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity: Frequently Asked Questions,” www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html.

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 2000–2005 Source: fcc.gov/eb/oip/ComplStatChart.pdf

Violence and Sex: Taboos in Entertainment

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porter’s 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery , for example, is known for expressing “the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process,” and showcases “the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema.”“Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html . The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinema’s fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he “believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity.”“Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html .

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8, this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industry’s self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to “police all in-house productions.”“Violence,” Film Reference, http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Romantic-Comedy-Yugoslavia/Violence-BEGINNINGS.html . Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industry’s commitment to the public, stating the following:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment…. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking.“The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html.

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and “dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc.” could not be presented in detail.“The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html. The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.”“The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code),” ArtsReformation, www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

Ratings Systems

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPDDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Film Ratings

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to age 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to age 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both films—and subsequently the MPAA—received criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13. Examples of films with a PG-13 rating include Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011), Avatar (2009), The Dark Knight (2008), and Titanic (1999).

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Examples of films with an NC-17 rating include Showgirls (1995) and Crash (1996). Despite the arguably milder format of the rating’s name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Television and Video Game Ratings

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all television shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children age 7 and above), TV-Y7-FV (older children—fantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Source: www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.htm

At about the same time that television ratings appeared, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was established to provide ratings on video games. Video game ratings include EC (early childhood), E (everyone), E 10+ (ages 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adults only).

Table 15.3 Video Game Ratings System

Source: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Even with these ratings, the video game industry has long endured criticism over violence and sex in video games. One of the top-selling video game series in the world, Grand Theft Auto , is highly controversial because players have the option to solicit prostitutes or murder civilians.Media Issues, “Violence in Media Entertainment,” www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/violence_entertainment.cfm. In 2010, a report claimed that “38 percent of the female characters in video games are scantily clad, 23 percent baring breasts or cleavage, 31 percent exposing thighs, another 31 percent exposing stomachs or midriffs, and 15 percent baring their behinds.”Media Awareness Network, “Sex and Relationships in the Media,” Media Awareness Network , www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_sex.cfm. Despite multiple lawsuits, some video game creators stand by their decisions to place graphic displays of violence and sex in their games on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Government devised the three-prong test to determine if material can be considered “obscene.” The FCC applies these guidelines to determine whether broadcast content can be classified as profane, indecent, or obscene.
• Established during the 1930s, the Hays Code placed strict regulations on film, requiring that filmmakers avoid portraying violence and sex in films.
• After the decline of the Hays Code during the 1960s, the MPAA introduced a self-policed film ratings system. This system later inspired similar ratings for television and video game content.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Look over the MPAA’s explanation of each film rating online at http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means . View a film with these requirements in mind and think about how the rating was selected. Then answer the following short-answer questions. Each response should be a minimum of one paragraph.

• Would this material be considered “obscene” under the Hayes Code criteria? Would it be considered obscene under the FCC’s three-prong test? Explain why or why not. How would the film be different if it were released in accordance to the guidelines of the Hayes Code?
• Do you agree with the rating your chosen film was given? Why or why not?

College Media Review

Journal of the College Media Association

RESEARCH: Student media coverage of censorship and press freedom

Student news organizations have long experienced various forms of censorship.

This qualitative pilot study (N=46) examines articles on college newspaper websites to explore how student news organizations cover issues of press freedom and censorship. The researchers used a grounded theory approach to explore common themes of coverage and potential differences between private and public institutions’ approach to such topics. The findings indicate there are four broad areas of interest: explanation of the role of journalism, industry challenges, censorship, and college-specific issues of press freedom and speech. This pilot study will serve to inform a larger content analysis.

Introduction

According to the Student Press Law Center , censorship is “any restrictions on your publication’s coverage or operations by anyone who works for the school or is acting on behalf of the school (like student government officials)” (Dean 2021, para. 1). Outright acts of censorship can be seen, for example, when in 2013, The Fauman at Florida A&M University was “suspended from publishing, its adviser removed and its staff told they must reapply for their positions” (Gregory 2013). In a case study of different college newsrooms, it was found that “that administrators who engage in censorship appear to do so when the newspaper publishes unflattering coverage of the university” (Matlock 2021, 97).

However, censorship is not always obvious and can manifest in subtle ways. In a Q&A with College Media Review , then SPLC executive director Frank LoMonte identified newspaper theft and closure of academic programs as forms of censorship (Smith 2013). Student government representatives allegedly trashed student newspapers at Virginia Commonwealth University in 2020 (SPLC 2020), and a campus police officer was recorded throwing away copies of The Chimes , the student newspaper of Capital University, a private university in Ohio, in 2019 (Severino 2019).

While outright censorship may not be common, less obvious forms of control can be seen in budget cuts and disciplinary action against student journalists or advisers (Dean 2021).

Editorial control varies among student media outlets, and is often determined in part by funding. The College Media Association’s 2021 benchmarking survey indicates that student newsrooms are often funded by a combination of sources, with more than half of respondents indicating that they received some student fee funding, more than 30% getting departmental support, 40% reporting administrative allocations, and more than 60% bringing in some advertising revenue (CMA 2021). The same survey found that more than 10% of advisers indicated that they edited content or had decision-making ability over content—which is counter to the College Media Association’s Code of Ethics (CMA n.d.)

In general, the threat and potential for censorship is a constant source of concern and threat to student news organizations. Thus, it is of interest to explore how student journalists themselves report on issues of censorship, freedom of the press, and other related rights.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze how student news organizations report on and address such topics.

Literature Review

  Student news organizations are not dealing with threats to student press freedom in a vacuum. A decline in support for mass media has been tied to a decline in trust in American institutions since the late 1970s, when 68-72% of people in the United States said that they trusted the mass media (Brenan 2021). The most recent Gallup data found that only 36% of Americans trust the media today, while 34% said they have no trust at all. Gallup reported this is the second lowest level of support on record, about four points more than during the 2016 presidential election. Media outlets were not alone, either, as Pew Research found that trust in government was at one of its lowest levels ever in 2015 (Pew 2021).

Donald Trump’s election in 2016 increased the climate of distrust in both the media and government as Trump successfully used rhetorical strategies to unite his followers and divide his opponents. Trump’s rhetoric not only attacked his opponents, but also the press (Mercieca 2020). For example, Trump threatened to weaken the protections of the First Amendment, promised to strengthen libel laws for use against journalists, and intimidated and threatened journalists, calling them the enemy of the people (Horwitz 2016; Gidda and Schonfeld 2016; Downie 2020). These threats were not limited to professional journalists, but student journalists often face threats to their press rights closer to home, which is why the Student Press Law Center declared 2019 the “Year of the Student Journalist” noting that “Student journalists have lesser First Amendment protections and are often subject to censorship, prior review, budget battles and other external pressures” (2019, para. 5).

There has been much work documenting instances of censorship of the student press. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that “60% of student newspapers at four-year public institutions faced some form of censorship” in 2021 (Conza 2022, para. 2). In 2019, FIRE published a report detailing student media threats such as censorship demands, prior review, pressure on student media advisers, and newspaper theft (“Under Pressure” 2019).

Similarly, in 2016, the American Association of University Professors, the College Media Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship and the Student Press Law Center published a report documenting threats and hostility toward student media and press freedom. They noted that over a three-year period, more than 20 student media advisers reported attempts by university administration to censor the student press (AAUP et al. 2016). Significantly, the report found that these threats to student press freedom were evident at all types of institutions, including public and private institutions, religiously affiliated institutions, and community colleges.

Other research on censorship and the student press has addressed students editors’ and newspaper advisers’ willingness to self-censor based on intrinsic or extrinsic factors (Filak 2021; Farquar and Carey 2018; Filak and Reinardy 2009) or instances of censorship of the student press (see Bankes et al. 2002; AAUP et al. 2016).

Students at private institutions potentially face even greater threats of censorship, as it is well-established that students at public institutions are accorded greater First Amendment rights than students at private institutions. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech applies only to governmental actors or in instances where there is “state action.” State action is present when individuals, groups, or organizations perform a “public function” that has been exclusively the domain of the government ( Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks , 1978). In Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1981), the Supreme Court definitively held that private schools are not state actors, and, therefore, the protections of the First Amendment do not apply. While the Rendell-Baker case concerned a private high school, the principles concerning state action are applicable to private colleges and universities as well. Thus, while public college students receive First Amendment protection, the free speech and press rights for students at private institutions tend to be determined contractually, in university bylaws or student handbooks, and administrators enjoy wide latitude in determining the scope of student press freedoms.

One of the first Supreme Court cases to discuss whether the student press has broad First Amendment protections is the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case. Hazelwood examined whether it is constitutional for a principal at a public high school to delete articles that he deemed inappropriate from the student newspaper. The Court held that high school newspapers are generally not considered “public forums” and therefore do not receive broad First Amendment protections unless the school has opened up the forum for indiscriminate use by the public. In the Hazelwood case, the student newspaper was part of the school’s educational curriculum and was considered a “regular classroom activity” (484). Moreover, the newspaper was funded by the School Board and the teacher had editorial control over the paper. For this reason, the Court found that it reasonable for educators to make determinations about what content was appropriate and that the school had the legal authority to delete content deemed inappropriate or inconsistent with the school’s educational mission, so long as the school’s actions are “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” (273). The First Amendment rights of high school journalists are, therefore, very limited and high school journalists lack broad First Amendment protections.

It is significant that the Hazelwood case dealt specifically with public high schools rather than colleges. In fact, in a footnote, the Court explicitly found that the Hazelwood case did not necessarily extend to colleges, noting that “[W]e need not now decide whether the same degree of deference (to school administrators’ decisions) is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored activities at the college and university level” (footnote 7). Many lower courts, then, have not extended the Hazelwood reasoning to colleges or universities (see generally Kincaid v. Gibson 2001).

However, in 2005, a federal appeals court explicitly extended the reasoning of the Hazelwood case to colleges and universities, holding that a college newspaper was not a public forum because the school provided funding and sponsored the activity ( Hosty v. Carter 2005). The case held that university administrators may have the power to censor student newspapers when the university subsidizes the speech. The Hosty case caused great concern among free speech advocates and policy-makers, as it opened the door to broad regulation of the student press by university administrators. As a result, some states have statutorily extended free speech and press rights to students at both public and private colleges. California became the first state to extend broad First Amendment protections to private school students (see Cal. Ed. Code section 94376), students at community colleges (see Cal. Ed. Code section 76120), and also public college students (see Cal Ed Code section 66301).

The New Voices Movement, a grassroots movement that began in 2015, has advocated expanding the free speech and press rights to students at both public and private schools.

According to the Student Press Law Center, as of January 2022, 15 states have adopted legislation that broadened student press rights. These statutes offer varying degrees of First Amendment protections, yet the vast majority extend protections only to students at public high schools and universities. The notable exception is Rhode Island, which granted free speech and press rights to students at both public and private universities (see Rhode Island General Laws, Title 16, Chapter 109). Thus, only two states explicitly protect the speech and press rights of students at private universities.

While actual and potential threats to student press freedoms have been well-documented along with factors that may influence self-censorship, there is limited research on the ways in which the student media outlets themselves cover issues of censorship and free expression.

Understanding how the student media cover issues of censorship is important, as this may reflect what that the students themselves see as most significant. Moreover, the ways in which student media cover press freedoms has the potential to influence how the broader campus community perceives issues of censorship and the free press and whether audiences will perceive censorship and press freedom as a significant issue at all. Further, as the First Amendment rights of students at private universities are very different from students at public universities, this would suggest that student media organizations at private schools may cover issues of censorship and press freedom differently than those at public institutions.

As such, the researchers put forth the following questions:

• RQ1: How do student media organizations cover issues of censorship and press freedom?
• RQ2: Is there a difference in how student media at private and public institutions cover these issues?

Methodology

The researchers identified all registered student publications of the College Media Association using a member directory. The authors removed duplicates, non-educational institutions, and programs without an online presence. Each remaining site was searched for specific keywords. Any articles that mentioned one or more of these terms that were published between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 were collected for a total sample of 924 articles from 144 public four-year universities, 78 four-year private universities, and 19 community colleges.

For this qualitative pilot study, the researchers used a systematic sampling technique to construct a stratified sample (N = 46) based on institution type that represented 5% of the full data set. The pilot study sample included: 19 articles for “censor” and “censorship,” 16 articles for “First Amendment,” 9 articles for “free press”/”freedom of the press”/Press freedom/freedom of press, 0 articles for just “free speech”/”Freedom of speech and 2 articles for “free speech”/”First Amendment” that were found using both search terms.

The researchers employed a grounded theory approach to explore themes in the data. The researchers first used simple random sampling to select seven articles (about 15%), which the researchers, using the constant-comparative method, individually open coded. The researchers then discussed their open coding for commonalities and differences and developed 15 discrete codes. One article was recoded simultaneously by all researchers to confirm agreement. The remaining articles were evenly divided among the researchers, and each coded their subset using the agreed upon 15 codes. Using investigator triangulation, the researchers exchanged their subset of articles with each other and conducted a second round of coding. The researchers discussed these results and resolved points of contention through consensus, and then the researchers further collapsed the discrete codes into four general themes of journalistic coverage.

The researchers completed multiple rounds of analysis of the 46 articles in this pilot study. From the initial open coding, the 15 codes were:

• Industry challenges,
• Who is a journalist,
• Journalistic decision-making or explanation,
• Explanation of speech or press rights or history,
• Journalism mission,
• College journalism mission,
• General threat of censorship,
• Administrative threat of censorship (college),
• Acts of censorship (college level),
• Acts of censorship (non-college),
• Physical threat, harm, or death of journalists,
• Administrative expectations or reactions to negative coverage,
• Administrative or university support for student media,
• Donald Trump, and
• ‘Fake news.

Upon further review and discussion, these codes were collapsed into four dominant areas:

• the role of journalism,
• industry challenges,
• censorship, and
• college-specific coverage.

These areas will be discussed in greater detail below.

The Role of Journalism

  By far, the most common topic among all the student media outlets and articles reviewed was the role of journalism, which included the codes of explanation and history of speech and press rights; journalism mission; journalistic decision-making or explanation; and who is considered a journalist. The most dominant theme among all newspapers, including newspapers at both private and public institutions, was an explanation of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This received significantly more discussion than any other theme, including discussion of specific acts of censorship. Within this theme, the most common sub-theme concerned why the First Amendment is so important and what is broadly guaranteed by the First Amendment, as well as the marketplace of ideas. As The Et Cetera, a student publication of Dallas College Eastfield Campus (community college), noted in a 2018 editorial, “While there are many channels to express our right to freedom of speech, the right to a free press and free speech works hand in hand to hold politicians and the government accountable in the eyes of Americans.”

Often when explaining the First Amendment, other rights and protections were discussed in the context of the mission of journalism. Student media outlets indicated that the function of journalism is to tell the truth and that journalism must be a check on the powerful. For example, as students of Mt. San Antonio College (community college), wrote, “Our role as the free press is to keep the people informed by shining a constant spotlight on the truth, on the leaders people elect to lead them, and on the decisions those leaders take on behalf of the people.” There was also limited discussion about the importance of providing context for stories and that journalists should not guard or protect the public from information. The Monmouth Outlook (Monmouth University, 4-year, private) explained in a staff editorial that, “[journalists] are not responsible for guarding or protecting the people from the events of the world.”

However, in some cases, student newspapers were not just explaining free speech rights or their histories, but rather they debated the value of protecting all speech, including hate speech. For example, some writers suggested that the marketplace of ideas is not fair or equal. In a 2019 opinion piece from Seattle University’s The Spectator (4-year, private), a student wrote, “However, the marketplace of ideas does not account for an unequal society where some members have more privilege in getting to speak their thoughts, as well as to be taken seriously by the rest of society,” and argued that hate speech violates other constitutional guarantees: “Hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment because it denies all Americans of their right to liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment, and prevents all Americans from becoming involved with the Democratic process.” Still other writers observed that some speech causes more harm than good, and the editor in chief of The Western Courier (Western Illinois University, 4-year, public) wrote, “Free speech is obviously a very important right that we have as Americans, but there is a line that must not be crossed.” Further, a letter to the editor published in Central Michigan Life (Central Michigan University, 4-year, public) noted, “Hate speech, though constitutional, is not harmless.”

Industry Challenges

Industry challenges subsumed the codes of more general challenges, fake news, and Donald Trump. Within this area, former President Trump’s attacks on the press emerged as one of the dominant themes. In many cases, the student newspapers discussed the former president as part of a warning of the erosion of a free press, in defending journalism, or when calling for more civil debate. Articles noted that Trump “shunned” the media, “attacked” the press, “lashed out at journalists,” and he claimed unfair treatment or censoring of conservative voices. For example, an editorial entitled “Staff Discusses Freedom of Press” from The Monmouth Outlook (Monmouth University, 4-year, private) reported that, “The current political administration has targeted various media outlets, claiming that they are ‘the enemy of the people.’” Similarly, The Miami Hurricane (University of Miami, 4-year, private) noted in an editorial that “The American press has also come under attack by our current president, who regularly tries to portray the media as an enemy to democracy, when in fact, it’s an ally.”

The code of fake news was often, but not always, linked to coverage of Trump, with reports in this theme focused on the proliferation of fake news, the threat it poses to democracy, and the role that Trump had in popularizing the term. The Commonwealth Times (Virginia Commonwealth University, 4-year, public), discussed the challenge in reporting real news if some audiences do not want to hear it and other audiences do not want to believe it. For example, they wrote, “Some criticized news programs for failure to be family-friendly — while others cried ‘fake news’ — insisting such a distasteful comment would never have come from the president’s mouth.”

Far less prevalent were more general industry challenges such as concern for the economic viability of the press in the digital age and the marginalization of the press, including the refusal of public figures to give access to the press or the loss of trust in media outlets.

Censorship incorporated the codes of general threat of censorship, non-college acts of censorship, and physical threat, harm, or death of journalists. General threats of censorship was a dominant theme in this category. Student journalists reported on this general threat from a variety of perspectives, including threats to the press, threats to individual free speech (both from the government and from private institutions), and threats to creative speech, such as books and music. For example, The Daily Emerald (University of Oregon, 4-year, public) warned that continuing threats to a free press “added to a growing list of recognizing the United States as an increasingly authoritarian state.” Whereas, The Daily Wildcat (University of Arizona, 4-year, public) reported that, “Our focus is largely on topics that will affect our democracy on a greater scale, but lately our guaranteed rights and freedoms have been routinely violated by the very government sworn to uphold them.” In terms of creative speech, in an opinion piece entitled

“Don’t you dare censor my comedy,” from Northern Arizona University’s Lumberjack student media outlet (4-year, public), the author critiqued political correctness and noted that “In comedy, sensitivity should be thrown out the window.”

Another theme was global threats to free speech and discussion of efforts to suppress the press in other countries. There was also broad discussion on a variety of issues, including the power of social media companies to censor speech and whether controversial speakers should be invited to campus. A column from The Daily Orange (Syracuse University, 4-year, private) stated that social media companies threatened free speech more than the government, stating that “Our discourse is filtered and approved by these private companies. University officials and a few thousand employees at Google, Twitter and Facebook ultimately decide what speech belongs in our political discourse and in our classrooms.”

However, in this particular pilot sample, there was an overall lack of overt cases of actual censorship, i.e., the prevention/suppression of publication or post-publication retribution that could create a chilling effect. In discussing censorship, it was often in the abstract or talking about censorship happening in other countries under more authoritarian governments. When discussing censorship, most articles revolved around concrete consequences of publishing information, such as the arrest of Julian Assange, the de-platforming of Alex Jones from InfoWars, or the banning of books.

College-specific Coverage

  When the student press covered issues of censorship and free speech specifically within the college context (college journalism mission, administrative threat of censorship, university support for press/free speech, administrative expectations/negative coverage, acts of censorship) several themes emerged. College journalists viewed their role as being a check on the actions of the university administration and that they had a duty to report the truth. For example, in an opinion piece in SAC Media (Mt. San Antonio College, community college, California), the author wrote, “Our newsroom takes a stand to be one of many defending the truth, shining that constant spotlight on it and the leaders who serve you, the student body, faculty and the rest of the community.”

Yet, despite the coverage analyzed herein coming from student publications, there was limited discussion of student press freedoms, though some coverage of larger issues of academic freedom and safety concerns. Notably, there was very little coverage of specific acts of censorship of the student press—theft of newspapers and budget cuts, which were more prevalent at public institutions than private ones. In a 2018 editorial in support of National Newspaper Week, the staff of The Prospector (University of Texas El Paso, 4-year, public), noted “In our own publication, we have dealt with budget cuts and have been asked to take down content or revise it to suppress the truth” but did not detail these incidents. In a more detailed editorial from 2019 entitled “Theft of newspapers an act of censorship,” The Golden Gate Xpress (San Francisco State University, 4-year, public), discussed the theft of copies of its publication, “The May 14 and May 15 theft of more than 2,000 Xpress newspapers was an assault upon our independent student voice and an important reminder of why free speech must be protected at all costs.”

While there was little discussion of specific acts of censorship, student newspapers did discuss general threats of censorship from the university administration or campus climates related to speech. For example, in the previously mentioned editorial from Syracuse University, the author also noted, “SU is no stranger to free speech controversies and is near the bottom of the list of almost every university free speech index published.”

Private vs. Public

In addressing the second research question—Is there a difference in how student media at private and public institutions cover these issues?—the largest variation in coverage was seen in the college-specific coverage area. Discussion of general threats of censorship were more common among private institutions. Private institutions tended to focus on speech policies, such as the restrictive nature of free speech codes, or on indexes ranking colleges and universities in free speech protections, or administrator statements that the student press should protect the reputation of the institution. On the other hand, at public institutions, there was very little discussion of administrative threats, with only one specific incident of administrative threat being noted in this pilot sample. At UCLA (4-year, public), The Daily Bruin was sent “a cease- and-desist letter for having UCLA on our flyer and having a bear – not the Bruin bear, just a bear – on our flyer, trying to prevent us from using it as advertisement.”

Student newspapers at public institutions also discussed administrative support for free speech rights, which was primarily policy focused, as opposed to specific acts of support.

Articles discussed current or proposed speech policies at their university or state-wide policies designed to protect free expression at colleges. For example, The Battalion (Texas A&M, 4-year, public) wrote a 2018 article, “Student Senate passes free speech resolution” in which the reporter noted, “The resolution contained an explicit declaration of support for the First Amendment, which quelled concerns about the Student Senate’s position on allowing free speech activities on campus.” On the other hand, at private institutions, there was virtually no discussion of administrative support for free speech on college campuses.

In one other, though less prominent difference, in this particular sample, it is notable that only public universities’ student media outlets used the word “racism” or “racist” when discussing free speech. No private university newspaper used the word in the sample. This came largely in the context of Trump and, at times, was connected to specific remarks, for example The Commonwealth Times noted, “ The New York Times sparked similar controversy last week by publishing a ‘definitive list’ of instances in which Trump has done or said something undeniably racist. The compilation documents everything from Trump’s refusal to rent apartments to African Americans in the 70s to his most recent ‘shithole’ remark.”

These four dominant findings suggest that student media coverage did vary between private and public institutions, primarily when covering specific incidents of censorship or threat on their own campuses. Yet, by and large, when covering issues of press and speech freedoms, student media outlets were far more likely to discuss and explore the role of journalism in society and the rights and privileges afforded them.

Discussion & Conclusion

Overwhelmingly, student media coverage of issues of censorship was dominated by the potential for censorship or speech restrictions rather than actual incidents of censorship, though there were private and public institution differences in that coverage. That private institutions devote more discussion to general administrative threats to free speech is not surprising, given that student newspapers at private institutions do not have the same free speech protections as student newspapers at public institutions. The dominance of this coverage does suggest that issues of censorship and free speech are of concern to student journalists. This aligns with the findings regarding student journalists’ mission. Students saw the function of journalism as a check on the powerful and to report the truth. As such, they view the role of the student journalist as consistent with professional journalists.

Yet, the analysis revealed there is room to help both student journalists and audiences understand censorship and its impacts, as there were examples in which it became evident that there was confusion regarding what censorship is in its most basic form and who has the power to censor. There was also debate regarding how far free speech extends, particularly in the context of hate speech. Student journalists were reporting on the limits of speech in ways that considered other consequences, such as harm. Yet simultaneously, some student media coverage also speculated as to whether the United States is becoming less democratic.

With the dominance of coverage that examined free speech rights and censorship, these findings support advancing education and training in free speech, its legal protections, and its legal limits. In serving as campus publications, student news organizations recognized their ability to inform their communities, but they also serve a role in educating the campus community about what is happening both locally and nationally. Thus, it is important for student journalists to be educated in the rights of free expression to extend this understanding to audiences, including their own peers, who may be less familiar with their rights and protections. Stronger education in speech and press rights may prepare audiences to more fully exercise individual rights to free expression.

Limitations & Future Research

This research serves as a pilot study (N = 46) for a larger analysis of all collected articles (N = 924). As such, the sample of articles analyzed was limited and the findings are not intended to be generalizable. The findings of this qualitative study will be used to develop a codebook for the quantitative analysis of the full data set. In that content analysis, the authors will seek to identify common approaches to the topics of censorship, etc. by student news organizations.

However, neither this pilot study, nor future content analysis, has the ability to explore self-censorship or intent. Thus, future scholars should explore these topics in greater depths through other methods such as focus groups and interviews. Further, given the influence of Donald Trump, in the context of free expression, within this pilot sample, the researchers intend to explore whether student media coverage of free speech changed in light of the Trump presidency.

While the College Media Association is a national organization, not all student media operations are members and thus were not considered for inclusion in the study. Other scholars may wish to explore other avenues for identifying student media outlets for inclusion in related research. Additionally, future scholars may wish to compare student media coverage of such topics in different eras. The sheer variety of topics related to censorship and issues of free speech in this pilot sample—from creative expression to social media and beyond—provide many avenues for future exploration.

• American Association of University Professors, the College Media Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship and the Student Press Law Center (2016). Threats to the Independence of Student Media .
• Bankes, Paul, Lee Duemer, and Dora Salazar. 2002. “ The Catalyst and Student Press Censorship: Implications for Student Personnel Administrators .” College Student Affairs Journal , April, 30–37.
• Brenan, Megan. “ Americans’ Trust in Media Dips to Second Lowest on Record .” Gallup.com. Gallup, November 20, 2021.
• “ CMA Benchmarking Survey Results 2021 .” 2021. College Media Association (blog). 2021.
• College Media Association. n.d. “ CMA’s Code of Ethical Behavior .” College Media Association. n.d.
• Conza, Sabrina. 2022. “ As FIRE Launches Student Press Initiative, Student Journalists Continue to Face Censorship around Every Corner .” FIRE (blog). February 23, 2022.
• Dean, Sommer Ingram. “ What Exactly Is Censorship ?” Student Press Law Center (blog), April 20, 2021.
• Downie Jr., Leonard. n.d. “ The Trump Administration and the Media .” Committee to Protect Journalists. Accessed July 8, 2022.
• Farquhar, Lee K., and Michael Clay Carey. 2019. “ Self-Censorship Among Student Journalists Based on Perceived Threats and Risks .” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 74 (3): 318–35.
• Filak, Vincent F. 2012. “Concurrent Examination of Self-versus-Others Perceptual Bias and the Willingness to Self- Censor: A Study of College Newspaper Editors and Advisers.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (2): 299–314.
• Filak, Vincent F., and Scott Reinardy. 2009. “College Newspaper Advisers, Controversial Topics and Willingness to Self-Censor.” College Media Review 46 (2): 15–23.
• Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks , 435 U.S. 149 (1978).
• Gidda, Mirren, and Zach Schonfeld. “ Donald Trump’s Threat to Press Freedom: Why It Matters .” Newsweek , November 17, 2016.
• Gregory, Sara. 2013. “ Florida A&M Student Paper’s Publication Suspended, Adviser Removed .” Student Press Law Center. January 10, 2013.
• Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Horwitz, Jeff. “ Trump Threatens to Weaken First Amendment Protections for Reporters .” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, February 27, 2016.
• Hosty v. Carter , 412 F.3d 731(7 th Cir. 2005).
• Kincaid v. Gibson , 236 F.3d 342 (6 th Cir. 2001).
• Matlock, Haley Nicole. 2021. “Censor ship Concerns in College Media: A Multiple Case Study Analysis on the Silencing of Student Journalists .” Louisiana State University.
• Mercieca, Jennifer R. Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump . College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2020.
• “ Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 .” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. Pew Research Center, May 28, 2021.
• Rendell-Baker v. Kohn , 457 U.S. 830 (1981).
• Severino, Joe. 2019. “ Campus Police Officer in Ohio Fired after Trashing Student Newspapers .” Student Press Law Center. November 20, 2019.
• Smith, Susan. “ Newspaper Thefts, Censorship Efforts, Roadblocks to Public Records and More: A Q&A with Frank LoMonte .” College Media Review , October 14, 2013.
• Student Press Law Center. 2019. “ NEWS RELEASE: The Year of the Student Journalist Will Highlight the Importance of These Students and the Need to Support Them and Their Work .” Student Press Law Center. January 30, 2019.  
• Student Press Law Center. 2020. “ NEWS RELEASE: The Student Press Law Center Demands Remedial Actions for Stolen Issues of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Student Newspaper .” Student Press Law Center. March 5, 2020.
• Student Press Law Center (2022). New voices .
• Title 3 Cal Ed Code section 66301 (2009).
• Title 3 Cal. Ed. Code section 76120 (1977).
• Title 3 Cal. Ed. Code section 94376 (2009).
• Title 16 R.I. Chapter 109 (2019).
• “ Under Pressure: The Warning Signs of Student Newspaper Censorship .” 2019. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Kirstie Hettinga (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University) is an associate professor in the Communication Department at California Lutheran University. Her research addresses issues of accuracy and credibility in news media. She teaches media writing, editing, and content creation and serves as the faculty adviser to Cal Lutheran’s student newspaper,  The Echo .

Ryan Medders (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) is a professor in the Communication Department. His research addresses the social and psychological effects of the media, including selective exposure to and credibility assessment of online news and information. He teaches courses in mass communication, research methods, political communication, and international media.

Sharon Docter (Ph.D., Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California; J.D., University of California Los Angeles School of Law) is a Professor of Communication at California Lutheran University. Her research examines the ways in which the regulation of communication technology impact freedom of expression.  She teaches courses in communication theories, freedom of expression and legal issues and new media.

Share this:

Media Censorship and Its Impact

The freedom of information, the press and free speech is arguably an important human rights deeply rooted in the structures of democracy. Democracy, which largely derives its origin from the US, is one of the legal rights that should be provided and protected in the modern context (Goldberg, Verhulst and Prosser 207).

Under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is a requirement that every person to have the right to freedom of expression and opinion. In addition, the First Amendment of the US constitution prohibits the state to make any law that abridges the people’s freedom of speech and free press.

The media is arguably one of the most important tools that provide people with information as well as channels for expression and making speech. As such, any law that interferes with free media amount to violation of these legal provisions. Nevertheless, some information may be harmful, objectionable, sensitive and incorrect (Goldberg, Verhulst and Prosser 209).

Media censorship has become one of the most important tools through which the government attempts to control the type of information given to the people in order to suppress harmful communication.

Although media censorship is important in avoiding the harmful effects of uncontrolled communication, the government mediated censorship on the media is too much, which amounts to violation of the right to free press, expression and communication. Arguably, there is too much censorship on the media, which keeps important information relating to current political events away from the public.

The US has been enacting laws to control the negative effects of harmful, objectionable, sensitive and politically incorrect information. While this is important for the best interest of the citizens, it is worth noting that some of the enacted laws are excessively suppressing the media.

For instance, the communications decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was enacted with an aim of regulating indecency and obscenity in cyberspace, especially when information is available for children (Wittern-Keller 56). However, the government used this act to suppress the media.

For instance, in 1997, the Supreme Court found the CDA unconstitutional in the case of Reno v. ACLU. When delivering ruling in this case, Justice Stevens held that the act was placing excessive burden on the media, which was unacceptable and unconstitutional (Nelson 88).

The government has also been attempting to suppress the media based on the claims of protecting children rights. For instance, in 1998, the US enacted the Child Online Protection Act, which restricted companies from feeding the minors with harmful materials on the internet (Wittern-Keller 79).

However, the Act was exerting too many restrictions on the free media. For instance, the Supreme Court found this act unconstitutional because it was hindering free speech among the adults, even when child protection from the information is assured.

Over the decades, the American government has used a number of ways to suppress the media through censorship. Currently, too much media censorship through federal and state laws attempts to control the information passed through press. The first amendment to the US federal constitution concerns with the protection of people’s rights to religion, speech, press and peaceful assembly.

Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment is one of the ten amendments that constitute the American Bill of Rights. One of the main purposes of a free media is to provide citizens with information about the things taking place in the government, public and corporate sectors (Gillers 279). The government’s objective of suppressing information, especially which related to political and economic sectors, amounts to violation of the two statutes.

One of the major reasons why the government tends to suppress information is to prevent public anger, which might lead to protests and insecurity. Currently, the office of the president recognizes this. For instance, the office of the president states, “the governments should not keep information confidentially just because public officer bearers might feel embarrassed or because errors and failures might be made public”.

This is an indication that the accountability cannot be achieved without proper information disclosure. The government accepts that some information is not being made public, especially in terms of public finance. The activities taking place at the Wall Street, where allegations of corporate influence on public finance offices are common, is an example of a lack of accountability through information concealing (Gillers 281).

On its part, the government attempts to conceal this kind of information to avoid public rage. In particular, the Occupy Wall Street protests were largely blamed on the excessive media involvement, which led to deviance. Thus, the government seeks to censor the media to avoid release of incorrect information, which amounts to violation of the first amendment and freedom of information act.

Noteworthy, media censorship is important to avoid sharing of the wrong information that may mislead the public. However, using laws to censor the media may lead to over-censorship, which allows only certain government approved data made public while less-attractive but true facts fail to feature in the released news.

This amounts to violation of the freedom to free press. Over-censorship is likely to make public officers hide their activities, which might be corrupt.

In the US, military censorship is an important topic of debate. It is worth noting that information relating to national security is highly sensitive. In addition, the government has the right to hold such information because it is largely a state secret. In any government, the military bears the largest burden in protecting the countries interests and boundaries against enemies.

Control of Information about the military activities is justified. Nevertheless, military censorship in the US had often led to deflection of news that reflects poorly the people in power. For instance, censorship of the media in reporting about the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was partly aimed at hiding information about America’s rogue nature, which led to an unjustified war.

In fact, a lot of information about the country’s failures in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and many instances of torture perpetrated by American and British soldiers in Iraq has been concealed under the pretence of military censorship.

On the other hand, a number of critics argue that censorship is important to restrict rogue media from perpetrating deviance, violence and lawlessness. For instance, critics argue that unrestricted release of information, especially those portraying the people in power negatively, is likely to increase the risk of retaliations by groups or countries that are affected by the information.

For instance, the recent release of information proving that American security agencies have been eavesdropping phone conversations by foreign leaders, including the German presidency, led to bitter relations and speculations between the two nations. Thus, the media must be censored to maintain positive views about the US and enhance her relations with foreign nations, especially her allied in Europe and other regions.

In addition, after the media released Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, Muslim extremists retaliated by beheading Nicholas Berg, and American contractor. They posted the video footage on the internet to show the Americans that their actions have consequences. Arguably, this could be avoided in the media was prohibited from posting Abu Ghraib photos.

In conclusion, the debate about media censorship will remain a contentious issue as long as the country has not developed laws to differentiate between positive censorship and negative concealment of information about leaders. In fact, there must be no political influence on media censorship.

Works Cited

Gillers, Stephen. “A tendency to deprave and corrupt.” Washington Law Review , 85.2, (2007): 276-88. Print.

Goldberg, David, Stefaan Verhulst and Tony Prosser. Regulating the Changing Media: A Comparative Study . New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print

Nelson, Samuel. Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism . The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print

Wittern-Keller, Laura. Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915–1981 . Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2008. Print

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 13). Media Censorship and Its Impact. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/

"Media Censorship and Its Impact." StudyCorgi , 13 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Media Censorship and Its Impact'. 13 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Media Censorship and Its Impact." January 13, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/media-censorship-and-its-impact/.

This paper, “Media Censorship and Its Impact”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 13, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Search the Holocaust Encyclopedia

• Animated Map
• Discussion Question
• Media Essay
• Oral History
• Timeline Event
• Clear Selections
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português do Brasil

Featured Content

Find topics of interest and explore encyclopedia content related to those topics

Find articles, photos, maps, films, and more listed alphabetically

For Teachers

Recommended resources and topics if you have limited time to teach about the Holocaust

Explore the ID Cards to learn more about personal experiences during the Holocaust

Timeline of Events

Explore a timeline of events that occurred before, during, and after the Holocaust.

• Introduction to the Holocaust
• Antisemitism
• How Many People did the Nazis Murder?
• Book Burning
• German Invasion of Western Europe, May 1940
• Voyage of the St. Louis
• Genocide of European Roma (Gypsies), 1939–1945
• The Holocaust and World War II: Key Dates
• Liberation of Nazi Camps

Nazi Propaganda and Censorship

The Nazis used propaganda to win the support of millions of Germans. Censorship helped to suppress ideas that the Nazis saw as threatening. 

• Nazi rise to power
• Joseph Goebbels

This content is available in the following languages

Nazi Propaganda and Censorship The Nazis wanted Germans to support the Nazi dictatorship and believe in Nazi ideas. To accomplish this goal, they tried to control forms of communication through censorship and propaganda. This included control of newspapers, magazines, books, art, theater, music, movies, and radio.

How did the Nazis use censorship? 

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted. 

Examples of censorship under the Nazis included:

• Closing down or taking over anti-Nazi newspapers; 
• Controlling what news appeared in newspapers, on the radio, and in newsreels;
• Banning and burning books that the Nazis categorized as un-German;
• Controlling what soldiers wrote home during World War II.

How did the Nazis use propaganda?

The Nazis used propaganda to promote their ideas and beliefs. Beginning in March 1933, the regime tried to centralize its propaganda efforts in a new ministry led by Joseph Goebbels. This ministry was called the Reich Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda. 

The Nazis used a variety of propaganda tools to spread Nazi ideas. Examples of propaganda under the Nazis included: 

• Glorifying Adolf Hitler by using his image on postcards, posters, and in the press; 
• Spreading negative images and ideas about Jews in magazines, films, cartoons, and other media; 
• Making radios more affordable so that more Germans could listen to Nazi ideas and news;
• Broadcasting Nazi speeches on the radio and public loudspeakers;
• Organizing large and celebratory Nazi Party rallies;
• Creating groups, like the Hitler Youth and League of German Girls, that fostered Nazi ideals.

How did propaganda and censorship work together?

Textbooks are a good example of how propaganda and censorship worked together in the Nazi regime. The Nazis used both propaganda and censorship to control what students read in school. Nazi censors removed some textbooks from classrooms. New textbooks taught students to obey the Nazi Party, love Hitler, and hate Jews.

May 10, 1933 Nazi Book Burnings 

During the spring of 1933, Nazi university student organizations, professors, and librarians put together long lists of books they think are un-German. These lists include books written by Jewish authors. They also include books by non-Jewish authors whose ideas conflict with Nazi ideals. On the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis hold book burnings. They march by torchlight in nighttime parades, sing chants, and throw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books are burned. 

March 28, 1935 Premiere of the Propaganda Film Triumph of the Will

Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film Triumph of the Will premieres in Berlin. The film shows footage taken at the 1934 Nazi Party Rally at Nuremberg. The footage from the rally shows smiling children, cheering crowds, and uniformed Nazis. It features military parades and a speech by Adolf Hitler. Triumph of the Will will become one of the most infamous Nazi propaganda films. 

September 1939 Banning Germans from Listening to Foreign Radio

World War II begins on September 1, 1939. Shortly afterwards, the Nazi regime makes listening to foreign radio broadcasts illegal. This is an attempt to control what information Germans hear about the war. The Nazi regime sees news and information from outside Germany as a security threat. They are worried about foreign radio broadcasts, which some Germans can access on their home radios. Later in the war, the regime even sentences people to death for listening to foreign radio stations.

Series: Nazi Rule

Hitler Comes to Power

The Nazi Terror Begins

SS Police State

Nazi Racism

World War II in Europe

The Murder of People with Disabilities

German Rule in Occupied Europe

Thank you for supporting our work.

We would like to thank Crown Family Philanthropies and the Abe and Ida Cooper Foundation for supporting the ongoing work to create content and resources for the Holocaust Encyclopedia. View the list of all donors .