Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:08:26 -0500 From: Dave Wilson <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Op-Ed Columnist: May I See Your ID? X-Sender: dave@xxxxxxxxxx@mail.wilson.net To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx (Disclaimer: I was a journalist for two decades)With regard to things like ricin production, the Supreme Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case gives us a straightforward test about when material should be removed from public view: information that offers "grave, direct, immediate and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States" can be restricted by the government.
This test is so narrow that in 1979 the government even abandoned attempts to block the publication of an article explaining how to build a hydrogen bomb in a magazine called The Progressive, despite actually winning an injunction from a federal judge barring publication.
Why such a narrow test? Because, as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, otherwise officials will attempt to claim national security is at stake when in reality they only seek to protect themselves or wound their opponents. The Pentagon Papers detailed a concerted effort by certain individuals to mislead the American public about the conflict in Vietnam. In a sense, national security *was* at stake, but not for the obvious reasons.
The Pentagon Papers test recognizes the human frailty present in many of us. How many people do you know who would not be tempted to protect themselves, their friends, or their allies by attempting to suppress damaging information on national secuity grounds? By setting up such a strict test, a wise Supreme Court largely removed such temptations.
Does anybody legitimately need to know how to make ricin? I can't imagine why, at least not at the present time. I also can't imagine why anybody would need to make a hydrogen bomb based on the information in The Progressive. And I certainly disagree with the idea that just because you know something you should be able to publish it. But I don't know of a test that would let the government legitimately ban information about manufacture of ricin that couldn't be abused. For instance, we used to lock people up for saying bad -- but sometimes true -- things about this nation because those statements damaged our morale, which hurt us and helped our enemies. I can't imagine we ever want to go back there.
There was a Supreme Court justice who used to rib federal solicitors by saying, "I interpret the phrase 'Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech' to mean that Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech." It's not that we can't identify stuff that should be restricted; it's that it's too hard to stop once we get started. I am proud to live in a nation where the right to speak remains cherished and protected, despite occasional efforts to the contrary.
-dave At 10:23 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
From: Rich Wiggins <wiggins@xxxxxxx> Dave, I am a big believer in free speech, almost an absolutist. I also think you need to take a rational, statistical, public health approach to threats. So these arguments against censoring, for instance, the patent on how to make toxic ricin, appeal to me. But there is a valid case on the other side. A recent letter to the New York Times claimed that since photography has been around for well over a century, hand held cell phones with cameras could never constitute an invasion of privacy. This is of course nonsense. In 1865 only Matthew Brady and a handful of peers carried around cumbersome cameras. Put a 6 ounce digital camera in the pockets of millions of people, and there will be thousands of egregious violations of privacy. Invasions are well documented -- in locker rooms, bathrooms, nude beaches, whatever. We know that terrorists exist. We know they use the Internet. Yes, they have their own cookbooks and manuals. But if information is readily available to the, say, million or so terrorists on this planet, it is a statistical certainty that more deaths will occur. When we put public health information online, we hope and believe it will save lives. When we make it easy to Google how to make ricin, it is foolish in the extreme to conclude no one will follow the instructions. You either believe that the ready availability of information on the Internet changes lives and behaviors, or you don't. No fair believing that only good information changes behavior. All of this said, I do not know if we should censor as Kristof proposed in his Op Ed column. How many additional deaths do we tolerate to preserve free speech? (Cue the Ben Franklin quote...) /rich ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as dave@xxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/