Against the Grain: Is Twitter a threat to corporate heads?

Twitter has become a phenomenon in our fast-paced, mobile-Internet society, so it is no surprise that big name celebrities and athletes have turned to the technology as a way to communicate and interact with their fans.
What is surprising, however, is how the suits those pop culture icons work for, want their stars to have nothing to do with it.
The biggest concern for the corporate side of the entertainment business is that their employees reveal too much information about the inner-workings of the company, a particular project they are working on or other information deemed not appropriate to be made public.
For professional sports leagues, the fear is that excessive Twitter use will damage the reputation of the league. Whether is it off-handed or inappropriate comments or a Tweet that reveals a little too much about a teams strategy during halftime, these are seen as a potential threat to the credibility of both the league and the player. That is why both the NFL and the NBA have instituted bans on using Twitter during games.
Recently, there have been a few high-profile cases of corporate suits imposing restrictions on when celebrities can use Twitter. Both Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz, due to make the next Shrek movie, were forced to add "no twitter" clauses to their contracts in fear that they would reveal too much about the plot line if they were constantly updating their fans about the production of the film.
The new Twitter controversy comes after several celebrities have used Twitter to make important public announcements. One of the more notable cases was when ex-American Idol judge Paula Abdul used the service to announce that she would not be returning to the show.
These restrictions feel odd considering the incredible growth and popularity of Twitter. It provides those who live in the public spotlight a chance to communicate with their fans on a personal level that had never been previously possible. However, when does Twitter come to a point of too much information?
Some people may indeed be interested in what Kristie Alley had for breakfast and, although impossibly irrelevant, that type of information is certainly not harmful. The plotline of the new Shrek movie, however, may be a little more information than the studio executives are comfortable with - they are relying on that movie for millions of dollars worth of income. The halftime adjustments of the Milwaukee Bucks, may also be too much information, especially if their opponent is smart enough to have someone checking the feeds of all the players on the team.
It is easy to understand the reasoning behind restricting Twitter use of people of pop culture significance, but whether or not it is moral in a society that values freedom of speech is debatable. Does is show a lack of trust on the part of the corporate executives or are they simply protecting their interests? Can Twitter be banned completely or is it only in the right of corporations to restrict business-related Tweets?
Those who write the contracts are walking a fine line between infringing on basic human rights and protecting their own interests. The issue is intriguing and certainly one that will play out publicly over time. Considering the ever-increasing importance of microblogging in society, the path the Twitter debate takes could very well shape the future of the technology.