The poll is only letting me select one, but I wanted to say yes on both.
Here's how the attorneys at the ACLU weigh in
. Bolding is mine.
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In this case, therefore, legal action could be taken against Houston, if indeed local government was involved. But it would be a lot harder with Tribeca, a privately owned venture whose decision had no government interference.
Here's something else to consider:
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
My take on it is that censorship is playing dirty. With boycotts, e.g. of the film festival, Robert de Niro movies, etc., you're playing fair.
I don't buy the argument of "nobody told you that you can never see it, so it's not censorship." That's equivalent to saying that if a library bans Huck Finn from the shelves, it's not censorship because you could always go to another library. Carried a step further, China doesn't have Internet censorship because you could always go to another country and get online. Simply stated, Vaxxed
was censored from both film festivals.