|
|
Historically, in times of crisis in the United States, an understandable
desire to protect the nation has led to efforts to curtail civil liberties,
particularly the freedom of speech. In hindsight, these efforts have invariably
proved to be both unwise and unnecessary. The issue is not just of historical
interest. In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT
Act was passed with little debate, and dramatically expanded the investigative
powers of the federal government at the expense of Constitutional freedoms.
Today, six months after its enactment, is an appropriate moment to pause
and consider whether the erosion of legal principles and individual rights
is justifiable.
Under the PATRIOT Act and other recent government actions, there have
been many instances where the flow of information to the public about
government policies and activities has been restricted, debate on important
matters suppressed, dissent chilled, and individuals threatened with legal
sanction solely for their views or associations.
While the undersigned members of the Free Expression Network support
legitimate law enforcement activities designed to bring to justice the
perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and to prevent future threats
to our security, we oppose doing so in ways that fundamentally threaten
democracy, by allowing government broad power to monitor and investigate
the personal opinions of its residents, and by restricting the free flow
of information beyond the need to protect national security. We also condemn
all efforts to demonize or punish dissent.
We list below some of the events that collectively form a troubling pattern,
reminiscent of past judgment errors committed in the name of a worthy
cause:
Government Surveillance
With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the federal government has assumed
broad powers to investigate the opinions of individuals suspected of being
a threat, creating the danger that Americans will be afraid to communicate
freely over the Internet, to purchase the books they want to read, or
to use libraries to obtain information they need.
|
* Government investigators can now obtain court orders to monitor
online communications upon an extremely low legal standard - with
only a government official's assertion of relevance - and without
effective judicial oversight.
* Investigators can also obtain orders compelling booksellers or
librarians to turn over private information about their customers
and patrons; a bookseller can be ordered to turn over a list of
the books a customer has purchased; a librarian can be compelled
to report what books a patron has borrowed and, if the library has
computers, what Web sites he or she has visited. These orders can
be issued following secret hearings at which a special court hears
only the government's case. The law also forbids booksellers and
librarians to make public even the fact that they have received
such orders. The Colorado Supreme Court recently addressed the free
speech implications of government searches of book purchases, and
recognized the general "right to purchase books anonymously, free
from governmental interference."
* On October 30, 2001, the Attorney General issued regulations
permitting warrantless monitoring of attorney-client communications
without judicial review under certain circumstances in cases involving
terrorism.
|
Access to Government Information
Citing national security concerns, the government has restricted access
to a wide range of information. The drive for government secrecy, moreover,
is part of a much larger effort to insulate government decision-making
from the press and public scrutiny.
|
* By memorandum dated October 12, 2001, the Attorney General restricted
public access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Federal officials handling FOIA requests are now under instructions
to deny requests on any "sound legal basis;" previously, information
could only be withheld if government officials could show that disclosure
would cause "substantial harm."
* Information previously readily available in the public domain
is now being withheld at the sole discretion of federal agencies.
The Government Printing Office has ordered over one thousand libraries
that serve as federal depositories to destroy government records
that federal agencies say could be "sensitive," and at least 15
government agencies have removed information from the Internet.
*On November 1, 2001, President Bush blocked the release of presidential
papers, despite the mandate of the Presidential Records Act of 1978;
although this dispute began before September 11, the President is
now defending his action in part based on the need to protect "national
security."
* Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has consistently refused
to testify before Congress, and other members of the Bush Administration
have invoked executive privilege or other secrecy claims in situations
unrelated to national security. For example, the General Accounting
Office, Congress' investigative arm, sued the White House over its
refusal to provide documents relating to the energy task force overseen
by Vice President Cheney, and the LA Times recently reported that
the Justice Department is refusing to turn over documents to Congress
relating to Attorney General Ashcroft's stated desire to have the
FBI destroy records of all gun sales within 24 hours, rather than
the current 90 day period, a change in policy which a GAO report
indicates may allow illegal gun purchases to go undetected.
* Administration officials have openly limited the ability of the
press to cover the war and prevailed on the news media to censor
statements by Osama bin Laden and other information; and the Defense
Department disbanded a planned Office of Strategic Information only
after a government employee revealed publicly the intent to use
the office to disseminate false information to the American people,
and America's allies as well as its enemies.
*An estimated 1200 people were initially detained in connection
with the investigation of terrorist activity, and an undetermined
number are being held now. Many have been held in virtual secrecy,
without disclosure of their identities or the grounds for detention.
Government officials have vigorously opposed disclosure of information
about detainees in several pending lawsuits. The government also
asserts that national security justifies keeping immigration proceedings
involving detainees closed to the press and public.
* Under the rules governing military tribunals, certain information
deemed to implicate national security may be kept secret even from
defendants, jeopardizing their ability to mount an effective defense.
|
Freedom of Association
Since September 11, a wide range of lawful political association has
been deemed suspect and subject to government scrutiny. Ill-defined grounds
for suspicion will likely lead to a repetition of past abuses of investigative
authority.
|
* Lawful aliens who associate with members of "terrorist" organizations
are subject to deportation; the definition of terrorism is so broad
that a member of Congress has proposed that the Justice Department
investigate two AIDS activists who allegedly harassed and threatened
health officials for "terrorism" under the provisions of the USA
PATRIOT Act.
* The Attorney General reportedly wants to relax the standards
governing investigation of domestic political activities, which
have been in place since the 1970s, and were adopted to prevent
abuses connected with the then-routine surveillance of civil rights
groups and anti-war protestors.
|
Suppression of Speech and Dissent
These governmental acts have also created a climate chilling to speech,
debate, and dissent in the very places intended to foster discussion and
dialogue - schools, colleges and universities, and newspapers. On college
campuses, and in high schools and even elementary schools, students and
teachers face discipline if they question official US policy in response
to terrorism. Sidewalk speakers have been attacked, journalists fired,
and writers and entertainers publicly chastised for being insufficiently
"patriotic," i.e. for expressing a dissenting opinion.
|
* In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, colleges
and universities disciplined faculty members for speech deemed inappropriate
or unpatriotic, including Sami Al-Arian, a tenured professor at
the University of South Florida whose dismissal is sought because
of comments he made on a television show, Prof. Kenneth Hearlson
of Orange Coast College in California, who was suspended and officially
reprimanded, and Prof. Richard Berthold, who was subjected to disciplinary
action at University of New Mexico.
* Three newspaper editors have lost their jobs for criticizing
American policy. In September, Tom Gutting, the city editor of the
Texas City Sun, and Dan Guthrie, a columnist for the Grant's Pass
Dial in Oregon, were dismissed for writing columns that criticized
President Bush for not returning to Washington immediately after
the September 11 attacks. In February, Tim McCarthy, editor of the
weekly Courier in Littleton, N.H., was fired over his criticism
of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
* Other voices openly call for the suppression of discussion and
debate on college campuses, by characterizing anyone who questions
government policies as "unpatriotic." The American Council of Trustees
and Alumni issued a report in November, 2001, listing 117 allegedly
anti-American statements made on college campuses following the
terrorist attacks. The report called professors "the weak link in
America's response to the attack." In March, 2002, the Americans
for Victory Over Terrorism released its list of "objectionable"
statements from professors, legislators, and writers who, it claims,
"misunderstand...[American] ideals and their practice." Among others,
former President Jimmy Carter is criticized for his comment that
President's Bush's use of the phrase "axis of evil" was "overly
simplistic and counter-productive." While entitled to express their
views about these statements, ACTA and AVOT appear more interested
in suppressing criticism of the government than hearing dissenting
opinions and encouraging discussion and dialogue. Since both organizations
have close ties to the Administration, the appearance of government
coercion and power is also of concern.
|
The pattern of these events shows significant erosion of fundamental rights
and legal principles, not always confined to any realistic claim of necessity
for national security purposes. These rights and principles are essential
to our system of government, and the best advertisement for democracy
outside our borders. We call on our political leaders to resist proposals
that unduly and unwisely restrict the very freedoms that we as a nation
now collectively seek to preserve. The hasty measures that were taken
in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11 should now be reconsidered,
and we should reaffirm the right to free expression, open government,
discussion and debate that have kept us strong and free for more than
two hundred years.
April 26, 2002
Endorsing Organizations:
American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Feminists for Free Expression
First Amendment Project
National Coalition Against Censorship
Online Policy Group
Peacefire
PEN American Center
People For the American Way
Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts
|