Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own discourse, typically out of fear or deference to the perceived preferences, sensibilities, or infallibility of others, and often without overt external pressure. Self-censorship is commonly exhibited by film producers, directors, publishers, journalists, musicians, and social media personalities. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech from all forms of censorship. Article 19 explicitly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." The practice of self-censorship, like that of censorship itself, has a long history.
Reasons for self-censorship
Social exclusion People often communicate to affirm their identity and sense of belonging. People may express their opinions or withhold their opinions due to the fear of social exclusion or unpopularity. Shared social norms and beliefs create a sense of belonging, but they can also create a suppression of expression in order to comply or belong. People may adjust their beliefs or opinions to go along with the majority attitude. There are different factors that contribute to self-censorship, such as gender, age, education, political interests, and media exposure. For some, the reason for their change in beliefs and opinions is rooted in fear of isolation and exclusion. For these people, the expression of their own beliefs is less important than the fear of negative reactions of others to the expression of those beliefs. Religious affiliation is a topic in which many occupational fields and areas may be a source of self-censorship. One particular area is psychology. From the origins of psychology, the field has frequently viewed religion with distrust. Psychologists and therapists often refrain from claiming to be part of any religion believing in the possibility that any expressions of any devout faith may be viewed as markers for mental illness or distress. A 2013 survey from the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "relative to the general population, psychologists were more than twice likely to claim no religion, three times more likely to describe religion as unimportant in their lives, and five times more likely to deny belief in God." Self-censorship is more common among fundamentalist believers like Wahhabism, Islamism, Calvinism, and Hasidic Judaism. The political cordon sanitaire was associated with self-censorship. Concepts like political correctness and spiral of silence have been found to contribute to the existence of self-censorship. According to a 2019 German survey on self-censorship conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 59% of respondents said they can express their views among friends, but only 18% believe the same is possible in public. Only 17% of respondents express themselves freely on the Internet.
Economic Self-censorship can also occur in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers, customers, or the owners in order to protect their livelihood either directly (i.e., fear of losing their job) or indirectly (e.g., a belief that a book will be more profitable if it does not contain offensive material). This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as soft censorship.
Legal In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial for fear of sanction by their governments.
Taste and decency Taste and decency are other areas in which questions are often raised regarding self-censorship. Art or journalism involving images or footage of murder, terrorism, war and massacres may cause complaints as to the purpose to which they are put. Curators and editors will frequently censor these images to avoid charges of prurience, shock tactics or invasion of privacy. Products intended for children and youthful audiences, such as young adult literature, can be affected by self-censorship in this context. When the director of the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art was interviewed regarding his decision to whitewash an antiwar mural showing dollar-draped military coffins, he speculated that the mural would have offended the community in which it was placed. He then added that "there were zero complaints, because I took care of it right away".
As a form of preference falsification Self-censorship is a form of preference falsification, though the concepts are not identical. Self-censorship is a passive act. It amounts to the suppression of potentially objectionable beliefs, opinions, and preferences. Thus, it amounts to self-silencing; it is an act of passivity. Preference falsification is the misrepresentation of one's preferences under perceived social pressures. It is often performative, as it can involve the active manipulation of one's preferences to impress an audience or avoid its wrath. For an illustration, consider a discussion on a controversial subject. We are among the participants. If we keep quiet, that is self-censorship. Insofar as our silence conveys agreement with a position that we actually dislike, our self-censorship amounts also to preference falsification. If instead of keeping quiet, we speak up during the discussion in favor of position A, when we actually favor B, that is preference falsification but not self-censorship. In pretending to like A, we have gone beyond self-censorship. We have deliberately projected a contrived opinion. In a nutshell, preference falsification is the broader concept. Whereas all self-censorship falsifies a preference through the signals it sends, preference falsification need not take the form of self-censorship.
In media
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
