This is nonsense. Self-censorship occurs whenever somebody censors himself. In polite conversation we might call it discretion (or valor). In a fiduciary or confidential relationship, we might call it adherence to the duty of confidentiality. In a contractual relationship, we would call it nondisclosure. In employment, on one hand we might call it professionalism—or self censorship on the other—depending on the context.
Regardless, the term "self-censorship" is not germane to or inherent in only citizen-government interactions.
People self-censor constantly on social media. You're not worried about the government taking a tweet out of context and driving your reputation into the ground, the mob of internet idiots has that covered. Fear of internet mobs causes people to censor themselves, and a definition of "censorship" that doesn't cover uses like that is not a particularly useful one.
The most important task you need to accomplish in the next week is this: Consult with criminal defense counsel with experience in this area of federal compliance—particularly because of the possibility that the documents you were helping to create were contrary to law. 18 USC § 1001 is a frightening statute with exceptionally broad applicability. Even if it wasn't you signing the form, if you were helping to complete the form, an Assistant US Attorney might see you as a target for a conspiracy charge. Although conspiracy requires proof of intent, that doesn't mean your life can't be wrecked by a wayward or overly zealous AUSA, even if you are exonerated later.
You may need, under whatever area of law applies here, to whistleblow to remove any potential taint on your activity. Or maybe counsel would advise you to lay low. Hard to say. That's why it's important to talk to counsel in this area of law.
Secondly, you may have cause of action for a whistleblower lawsuit. You may end up deciding not to proceed for several reasons already mentioned in other comments (expensive, time consuming, etc.), but you should seek competent legal advice from an employment attorney as well.
He makes some excellent points—that self-employed or start-up CEOs do have many stakeholders.
That said, the second sentence in this statement is false:
"First, if you have investors, you are working for them. They are providing the capital for your business and you have a fiduciary responsibility to return their investment with profit."
Yes, you have a responsibility to investors to do everything reasonable to give them a return on investment, but the type of investment may or may not create a fiduciary relationship. And it's important not to be glib about what fiduciary duties actually are and when they arise.
There seems to be a persistent myth that for-profit businesses are legally required to maximize profit, which is really not the case. It's perfectly possible for a company to have non-profit-maximizing strategies, especially in the short term. The founder might have some personal ethics regarding how a business ought to be run, or they might want to project a certain brand image, or they might be interested in maintaining a positive/motivating work environment even if doing so costs some clients or requires paying employees above-market, etc. As you note, fiduciary duties are much more specific. For example, screwing over minority shareholders in certain ways would be a breach of fiduciary duty; accepting investment under false pretenses may be as well. Simply running a company in a suboptimally profitable way, because it's how you prefer to run the company, is not. There are other mechanisms in place for handling disagreements over those kinds of things, such as investors demanding seats on the board in return for their investment, in which case they could vote to overrule your decisions (or replace you entirely, given enough seats).
To take a high-profile example, Chik-fil-A chooses not to open any of its stores on Sundays, because the owner believes the Sabbath should be a day off work. This may or may not maximize profits, but it's not an illegal choice even if it doesn't.
All great points. Directors have a very wide range of discretion, even now including absolution under many articles of incorporation for pursuit of corporate opportunities that may create a conflict of interest (as well as the long standing waiver by the corporation of the duty of care so often included in Delaware articles).
Short of a grossly malfeasant breach of loyalty or bad faith—or declaring dividends when the corporation meets the legal definition of insolvency—there usually aren't many claims for shareholders to bring.
Regardless of reason, the parent has the ultimate right to decide for his and her children. The government takes a back seat. True liberty lies in the capability to make decisions that the majority disagrees with.
Besides -- if these children do catch communicable diseases, and your children are vaccinated, what are you worried about?
