VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. | Government requests to remove content at Verizon Communications Inc.

Status
2.74% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
VZ
Lead filer
National Legal and Policy Center
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Digital rights
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Telecom
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that Verizon Communications Inc. (“Company”) provide a report, published on the company’s website and updated semi-annually – and omitting proprietary information and at reasonable cost – that specifies the Company’s policy in responding to requests to remove or take down content, or content-producing entities, from its platforms by the Executive Office of the President, Members of Congress, or any other agency or entity of the United States Government.
Supporting statement
In Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan ( 1963 ), and in other cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that private entities may not engage in suppression of speech at the behest of government, as it has the same effect as direct government censorship.

On July 15, 2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked, “Can you talk a little bit more about this request for tech companies to be more aggressive in policing misinformation? Has the administration been in touch with any of these companies and are there any actions that the federal government can take to ensure their cooperation, because we’ve seen, from the start, there’s not a lot of action on some of these platforms.”
Psaki replied, “Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as (Surgeon General) Dr. (Vivek) Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.”

Circumstantial evidence shows that the Company may have been the recipient of overtures, possibly from government, to censor. For example:

• A presidential campaign’s text-messaging system to voters, controlled by the Company, was shut down at a critical time during the 2020 election1
• Two top members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote the Company asking if it still intended to carry television networks that broadcast so-called “misinformation”2
• After pressure from public officials, the Company removed TV network OAN from its channel lineup3

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation nameDeclared voting intentionsRationale
Rothschild & co Asset ManagementAgainst

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.