Examples of censorship by proxy appeared in the early modern period, when governments held printers and publishers legally responsible for seditious or heretical content, incentivizing self-censorship without express prior restraint.[5] The English Licensing of the Press Act 1662 operated partially through this mechanism by requiring printers to obtain licenses and holding them accountable for printed materials.[6]
Kreimer characterized McCarthyism as an example of censorship by proxy. "The McCarthy era saw the rise of efforts by state and federal governments in the United States to persuade private parties to control speakers and publishers whom the accepted free speech jurisprudence placed beyond the reach of official prosecution."[1]
In 2003, law professors associated with Tel Aviv University observed that "the State allowed private nodes of control to emerge and develop in the information environment" and was using them to "seize control."[7]
Episodes of censorship by proxy took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 presidential election cycle. In 2021, Elizabeth Warren wrote to Amazon and other booksellers stating that certain books she accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation had "led to untold... deaths" to which they had contributed by selling them, which she characterized as "potentially unlawful." She accused Amazon specifically of "potentially leading countless Americans to risk their health and the health of their neighbors based on misleading and inaccurate information that they discover on Amazon's website." Legal scholar Christopher Keleher wrote of the senator's statements, "Although axiomatic that the government cannot silence speakers based on their viewpoint, using intermediaries to do so is equally impermissible. Yet defiance of the medical establishment prompted officials and their corporate proxies to collude."[8][9] These and other examples prompted the House of Representatives to pass the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act.[10][11]
In 2022, Reason magazine accused Adam Schiff of censorship by proxy when the representative publicly pressured Elon Musk to curtail the rise in abusive speech on Twitter following his takeover of the site.[12]
In 2023, the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued the Department of State for censorship by proxy of The Daily Wire and The Federalist. The suit alleged that the State Department's Global Engagement Center developed blacklist tools designed to damage advertising revenues to media outlets deemed to spread views unfavorable to the administration, including the New York Post, Reason, RealClearPolitics, and others.[13][14]
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, filed in 2024, found that the organization plausibly accused the former director of the New York State Department of Financial Services of a First Amendment breach when she met with financial institutions about discontinuing their relationships with the NRA.[15][16] In another 2024 suit, Murthy v. Missouri, attorneys general accused agents and aides of the Biden administration of attempting to coerce social media sites into removing material critical of the government and its positions.[17] Americans for Prosperity filed an amicus brief regarding the case, noting, "Censorship by proxy is still censorship."[18] The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief as well, observing, "Censorship by proxy has a history of bipartisan abuse, with governments using it to silence people and organizations espousing politically unpopular ideas."[19]
First Amendment scholar Evelyn Douek characterized ABC's 2025 decision to cancel Jimmy Kimmel Live! after pressure on The Walt Disney Company from the Federal Communications Commission as an example of jawboning.[20] The Cato Institute agreed, remarking,"Government officials need not act directly to censor speech."[21]
In October 2025, Will Creeley, Legal Director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, saying, "Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do." Creeley cited Murthy, Vullo, and the Kimmel cancellation as examples.[22]
In China, the government can fine or shut down social media providers for not complying with censorship regulations.[23]
In the European Union, hosting services are considered exempt from certain kinds of liability, but only so long as they agree to remove content at government request. This has engendered concerns about freedom of expression.[24]