As a lawyer, I've seen plenty of clients pay money in settlements that they really didn't "need" to pay, just because it was less expensive and disruptive than a long legal process.
In O'Reilly's case, he's a high-profile personality and it made sense for Fox to settle claims (regardless of their merit) to avoid negative publicity. I'm as close to 100% certain as I can be without seeing the confidential settlements that O'Reilly never admitted any guilt. Because the suits settled, we don't know if they were legitimate.
The only reason I think Fox axed him was because his contract is so ridiculously expensive and big ad buyers stopped buying when information leaked about the extent of settlements. I think Fox acted far too quickly to avoid bad PR because I suspect that after people stopped caring the ad dollars would return if the ratings justified such a return.
That's not exactly "censorship" but it also smacks of bowing in to pressure from groups that are against Fox for ideological reasons and have been stoking the negative media against O'Reilly to begin with.
As for policies in corporations, the policy is no tolerance to sexual harassment, not CLAIMS of sexual harassment. Most companies fight any and all claims until one is successful, just as it should be in any society where people are presumed innocent.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
