Protecting Our Freedoms

The attack of Sept. 11 brought the U.S. into a new era of uncertainty and wariness. We have been forced to defend our system of government, including our political liberties and freedom of expression, against attack from abroad. But as it tries to unify the nation, the Bush administration must not go so far as to stifle dissent. The current political climate, like all else in American life, is tense and volatile. It would be a dangerous step to create a political climate that is not conducive to airing differences of opinion. The administration should uphold democratic values by encouraging debate rather than attempting to control the information consumed by the American public.

In recent days, the administration has castigated a late-night comic for disagreeing with government policies and has attempted to restrict the editorial independence of the trusted Voice of America news reports. More recently, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice requested that television news executives consider the appropriateness of airing uncensored versions of videos released by Osama bin Laden’s al Queda organization. Rice argued that the propaganda effects of the videos might incite further violence against the United States, and that they might transmit coded messages to al Queda operatives still in this country.

It is almost unthinkable for the government to lobby news organizations against distributing relevant information because it may or may not cause emotions to run high. The limp excuse that bin Laden might be transmitting his messages over Fox News ignores the fact that terrorists have many easier means of communication—and in any case, the independent Arabic-language station Al Jazeera is available via satellite. The networks were not broadcasting troop movements, but videos and images of significant public importance, and they should not be pressured into keeping such information off the air.

We recognize that personal exhortations of network executives do not constitute government censorship. The networks make their own decisions about what to carry and what to cut. But in times when “supporting your country” has a powerful emotional appeal, such self-censorship can be even more dangerous than explicit prohibitions. Our civil society thrives on free discussion and debate, and if newspapers and television networks truly wish to keep our country strong, they must continue to make available to the public whatever is newsworthy.