Censorship has always been a contested space in American life, sitting at the intersection of free expression and social control. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, history continues to show that this right has rarely been absolute. Governments, industries, and communities have repeatedly sought to limit what people can read, watch, hear, and publish. Throughout the United States history, this battle of freedom of speech and censorship has taken multiple forms.
The following examples show not only what was restricted, but also why certain ideas were seen as threatening at the time. From Supreme Court precedents that defined the scope of press freedom, to Hollywood’s self-imposed moral codes, to the music wars of the 1980s, censorship has shaped the cultural landscape of the United States in powerful ways. It has determined which ideas enter public conversation and which are suppressed, reflecting the anxieties, values, and power struggles of each era.
The Foundations of Freedom & The Precedents that Defined Print
In the early 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court began setting new boundaries on the limits of speech and press, directly shaping how censorship could operate in America. In the 1919 Supreme Court Case Schneck vs. United States, Charles Schenck was convicted for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the World War I draft. The Court upheld the conviction and created the “clear and present danger” test, which allowed speech to be restricted if it posed an immediate threat to national security or wartime efforts. This decision gave the government broad authority to censor opposing political opinions during times of crisis, reinforcing the idea that free speech was not absolute. As a result, Schenck legitimized wartime censorship and legitimized how courts could prioritize state interests over individual expression when deemed necessary.
A little over a decade later, in 1931, Near v. Minnesota marked a turning point in how censorship was understood. A state law known as the Minnesota Gag Law allowed officials to stop the publication of newspapers deemed “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory.” Jay Near, the publisher of The Saturday Press, had printed articles accusing local officials of corruption and ties to organized crime. City leaders tried to silence the paper using this law, effectively imposing prior restraint and preventing future issues from being published. The Supreme Court struck the law down, ruling that prior restraint, preventing something from being published in the first place, was unconstitutional. While the Court acknowledged exceptions, such as obscenity, incitement to violence, or national security threats, this decision was a landmark victory for press freedom. It significantly limited the government’s ability to impose broad censorship on the media.
The Hay’s code & Hollywood’s era of self-censorship
The Hays Code played a central role in the history of censorship because it showed how an entire industry could be shaped by moral restrictions rather than direct government law. For nearly forty years, Hollywood operated under self-censorship, with filmmakers forced to follow rigid standards that reflected the social values of the time. This not only limited how topics like sex, violence, and religion could be depicted but also reinforced narrow cultural norms which effectively silenced alternate perspectives in one of the most influential art forms. In many ways, it demonstrated how censorship could operate indirectly through industry control and social pressure rather than outright legal bans. Its eventual collapse in the 1960s was equally significant because it revealed the limits of such rigid censorship in the face of changing social attitudes. As American culture grew more open to frank discussions of politics, sexuality, and violence, the Hays Code became outdated, and the MPAA ratings system provided a new model, that regulated access rather than silencing content outright. This shift marked a key moment in censorship history, by moving away from blanket suppression and toward a framework that balanced freedom of expression with parental and audience guidance.
Warning Labels and Radio Bans
The 80s brought censorship upon music as it became a major cultural flashpoint with the rise of the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), founded in 1985 by Tipper Gore and a group of mothers who felt similarly. Concerned about explicit lyrics in rock and rap, they pushed for warnings on albums they deemed inappropriate for children. This effort culminated in Senate hearings where musicians like Frank Zappa, Dee Snider of Twisted Sister, and John Denver, who showed up to defend artistic freedom against what they saw as government-backed censorship. The outcome was the creation of the Parental Advisory Label, a sticker meant to warn parents about explicit content. While officially not a ban, the label acted as a form of “soft censorship,” since many retailers refused to stock albums that carried it, limiting access for consumers and pressuring artists to self-censor.
Radio censorship also played a significant role in shaping how music reached audiences. Many stations refused to air songs that contained profanity, sexual content, or politically charged messages. Groups like N.W.A. faced outright bans, especially with songs such as F*** tha Police, which criticized law enforcement. Ironically, attempts to suppress this kind of music often made it more popular by sparking controversy and drawing public attention. Together, the PMRC and radio restrictions turned music into a battleground over generational values, morality, and free expression, highlighting the ongoing tension between cultural conservatism and artistic freedom in modern censorship history.
The Government’s fight to control the media
During the Vietnam War, government censorship clashed directly with press freedom in the case of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. These classified documents revealed that U.S. officials had misled the public about the war’s progress and objectives. When the New York Times and Washington Post attempted to publish them, the government sought an injunction, claiming national security concerns. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the newspapers, declaring that prior restraint was unconstitutional in this instance. This decision reinforced the essential role of the press in holding government accountable, even when the information being published was embarrassing or damaging to those in power. The Watergate scandal of 1972-74 further underscored the tension between censorship attempts and journalistic freedom. President Richard Nixon and his administration sought to suppress information about the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters and the cover-up that followed. Despite these efforts, investigative reporting by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post gradually uncovered the truth, exposing corruption at the highest level of government. Watergate demonstrated how a free press could challenge political power and bring accountability, even against efforts to silence it.
Suppressing Books that Criticize Suppression
Book banning has been one of the most enduring forms of censorship, with schools and libraries frequently targeting works deemed “immoral,” politically subversive, or controversial for their depictions of race, gender, or sexuality. Classics such as The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Bluest Eyes, and even graphic novels like Maus have faced removal from shelves at different points in history. Today, the practice has seen a resurgence in the United States, often focusing on books that address race, LGBTQ+ identities, or other sensitive social issues. Book banning is especially significant when it targets works like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and The Handmaid’s Tale, all novels that themselves warn against authoritarian control and the dangers of suppressing free thought. Ironically, these books are often removed from schools and libraries for the very themes that make them powerful: critiques of government overreach, depictions of sexual or political repression, and explorations of resistance to censorship. Targeting such works shows how censorship often seeks to silence critical perspectives and prevent young readers from engaging with difficult but essential questions about power, freedom, and democracy. In doing so, book banning not only limits access to diverse stories but also undermines the very warnings these authors intended to leave behind.