CENSORSHIP AND THE REGULATION OF EXPRESSIONrests on the assumption that schools are, in fact,
places where critical inquiry is fostered.
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF
‘‘CENSORSHIP’’When information (e.g. a book, a film, a speech,
etc.) is explicitly ‘‘censored’’ do people desire that
information much less—in accordance with the
presumed intention of the censoring agents? Are
people less likely to be influenced by a point of
view when its expression has been prohibited by
those in authority? To answer such questions, the
impact of the label ‘‘censored’’ can be studied
experimentally by exposing people to a communi-
cation (or a ‘‘taste’’ of a communication) to which
‘‘censored’’ is affixed and by then observing the
consequences of such a juxtaposition of label and
communication on their values and beliefs. When
this careful experimental work has been done, the
answer to both of these questions is ‘‘no.’’ Numer-
ous experiments have shown that explicit censor-
ship often backfires: the prohibition of communica-
tions leads people to covet them and to change
their attitudes in the directions the censored mate-
rial advocates.
A social-commodity theory (Brock 1968) ac-
counts for the backfire effect of censorship in
terms of the psychology of supply and demand. All
public communications are perceived to have some
limits on their distribution, and message recipi-
ents usually have some dim awareness of the ex-
tent of these limits. However, if the distribution is
explicitly limited by government statute, or other
overt interventions, awareness of scarcity is sharp-
ly heightened and the desirability and impact of
the communication are consequently increased.
When some information becomes less available,
this unavailability augments the information’s val-
ue. A decrease in supply causes an increase in
demand, and perceived censorship invariably en-
tails a perceived decrease in supply.
Experimental social psychology has illuminat-
ed the impact of censorship by showing that (a) an
individual can be influenced by a censored com-
munication, even without actually receiving it, (b)
the backfire effect increases as the penalties for
violating censorship are increased; and, somewhat
paradoxically, (c) the backfire effect is greater
when the prohibition applies selectively to one
group of people. For example, for a seventeen
year old, a film that was prohibited to persons
under eighteen years of age would be more desir-
able than a film that was prohibited to all persons.
In the former case, the censorship has more im-
pact because it is viewed as violating a personal
freedom; freedom to view a film is more threat-
ened if there are many other people (all persons
over eighteen years, say) who do have that freedom.The experimentally grounded insights from
social psychology—that explicit censorship usually
doesn’t work as planned, and that it often back-
fires—is often not factored into the planning and
interventions of censoring agents. In some in-
stances this may be good, as it reduces the effec-
tiveness of those who attempt to limit information
that is vital to public deliberation. In some instanc-
es, public information officers appear to have
become aware that perceptions of censorship can
hamper their efforts. In the 1970s, the Depart-
ment of Defense directed that the term be com-
pletely dropped. This seemingly cosmetic change
affects the way news coverage labels the sources of
news reports: what was once attributed to the
Office of Censorship, became, during the Gulf
War, a report from the Joint Information Bureau.Research on related forms of content advisory
labels, such as ‘‘parental discretion advised,’’ ‘‘viewer
discretion advised,’’ and the more specific codes
signaling levels of violence, nudity, sex, and pro-
fanity on television, has begun to reveal the extent
to which different kinds of labels affect the selec-
tion choices of boys and girls of different ages
(Cantor and Harrison, 1994–1995). In several cases,
these studies have revealed a ‘‘backfire’’ or ‘‘for-
bidden fruit’’ effect similar to the pattern found in
reactions to the censorship label. The finding that
restricted materials become more attracted—which
depended on age, gender, and the kinds of labels
used—have been extended to video game and
music advisories.Advocates of requiring such labels argue that
their goal is not to limit communication at its
source, but rather to provide parents and children
a greater degree of control over their communica-
tion choices. Some critics argue that, regardless of
intent, these labels lead producers to alter their
productions in order to avoid undesirable label-
ing. As with the ‘‘censored’’ label, the effects on
consumption of the targeted content will depend
not only on how the label affects desirability of the