New Study: Do Corporations Respect Freedom of Speech and Religion?
By Movieguide® Contributor
A recent study reveals that many major corporations lack protections for freedom of speech and religion.
The nonprofit organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) released its second annual Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index which evaluates major corporations on their respect of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The index scores the companies on a scale from 0 to 100 based on 24 performance indicators such as their terms of use and service, conduct policies, the company’s approach to religious accommodations, and respect for diverse beliefs at the workplace.
Of the 75 companies evaluated this year, Airbnb (2%), Amazon.com (4%), Alphabet (4%), Microsoft (5%), and Twitter (5%) scored as the bottom five companies.
Fidelity National Information Services (50%), M&T Bank (25%) and BOK Bank (17%) were the only companies to score above 15%.
Notable companies that saw a rise in freedoms compared to last year include Apple (7% to 8%), GoDaddy (2% to 8%), Meta (9% to 10%), and Citigroup (8% to 11%). Meanwhile, notable companies that saw a decrease in score from last year include JPMorgan Chase (15% to 9%), Discover (13% to 8%), Snap, Inc. (10% to 7%), and eBay (7% to 5%).
“Threats to freedom don’t just come from the government, but from major corporations like financial institutions and big tech companies that have concentrated power over essential services and communication channels,” ADF Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President for Corporate Engagement, Jeremy Tedesco, said. “Too often, these corporations de-bank or de-platform Americans, citing policies that give them unbound discretion to censor people for their views.”
“All Americans benefit when powerful corporations respect free speech and religious freedom,” Tedesco added. “Our goal is to help the largest corporations implement positive and lasting changes that protect everyone’s free speech and religious freedom from corporate overreach. Each survey completed, resolution filed, and conversation with senior leadership advances the ball.”
Movieguide® previously reported on the fight for freedom of speech:
Texas recently passed a new bill that would allow residents of the state to sue Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for censorship.
The federal appeals court supported the Texas bill, “House Bill 20,” which restricts social media platforms’ right to ban, suspend, and censor users.
“We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect first amendment rights in the Lone Star State,” Governor Greg Abbott said in a recent statement. “Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.”
“That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas,” Abbott continued. “I thank Senator Bryan Hughes, Representative Briscoe Cain, and the Texas Legislature for ensuring that House Bill 20 reached my desk during the second special session.”
The bill applies to social media companies with 50 million monthly users.
The Office of the Texas Governor wrote:
The law also requires several consumer protection disclosures and processes related to content management on the social media sites to which the bill applies. These sites must disclose their content management and moderation policies and implement a complaint and appeals process for content they remove, providing a reason for the removal and a review of their decision. They also must review and remove illegal content within 48 hours. House Bill 20 also prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content.
Texas’s attorney general Ken Paxton also praised the new bill.
“My office just secured another BIG WIN against BIG TECH,” Paxton’s office wrote in a tweet.
Others don’t see the new bill as a win and question whether or not Texas legislator’s hand in private companies is hypocritical.
Another potential downside that First Amendment lawyer Ken White notes, is that the law does not permit tech companies to cite previous successful defenses.
“Those are all things you’d do if you wanted to make litigation as attractive, expensive, and difficult to defend as possible,” White wrote in a Tweet.
- Content: +1Share:
- Content: +4