Can You Hear Me Now? Corporate Censorship and its Troubling Implications for the First Amendment

Terence Lau, University of Dayton
William Wines, Missouri Western State University

Abstract

The day when standing on a soapbox in a public park was an effective way to voice one’s dissent has passed. In this paper we argue that enormous disparities in economic power allow powerful corporations to silence opinions that they consider unfit for public dissemination. In commercial speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has in the past two terms handed down decisions dealing with “coerced speech.” Another problem in commercial speech is “coerced silence” or “coerced ignorance.” The paper begins with the Supreme Court’s doctrine that the First Amendment protects both the speaker’s right to speak and the public’s right to hear. Metaphorically, the channels of free speech in this country are pipelines that connect opinion makers with the American public. Increasingly, the control of pipelines resides in fewer and fewer hands, allowing economically powerful interests to either filter or censor the information. This threatens both the efficient running of a free market and the political freedoms inherent in American democracy. The authors call this phenomenon “corporate censorship.” Examples include an outdoor advertising company canceling Schirf Brewing Co.'s Polygamy Porter campaign and large companies threatening lawsuits to derail the publishing of academic research unfavorable to corporate interests. We suggest a public good approach to the First Amendment will provide a greater diversity of voice. We conclude, "The pursuit of profits with no concern for the flourishing of either the polity or the free market is shortsighted and, ultimately, counterproductive."