One Man Against Secrecy

[Muddleoftheroad]

Newsletter Editor Works to Limit Classified Information
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A23

Around lunchtime on Sept. 26, a security officer at the Space Vehicles Directorate on Kirtland Air Force Base shot an e-mail to Steven Aftergood, who was sitting in his frayed tweed chair at his computer, in his office on K Street.

"Questions/concerns have been voiced by our scientists and engineers regarding material on your web," the officer informed him. "Please advise on your collection methods and who provides authorization to you allowing publication of what is presently on your web site."

"Collection methods?" Aftergood chuckled, then responded: "Authorization for publication of material on our web site is contained in U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1.

www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

"If you have other specific concerns, let me know."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14488-2003Nov25.html

In another thread here, there are folks annoyed with me because I support free speech. Lest they forget what that concept really protects, I offer up this story to further state my case.

[edzontar]

1. No Muddle, "people" are mad at you because you defend Right-Wing

Student "Watch-Lists" of Liberal Professors (in Texas) and criticize those who suggest that this might be a bad thing-and point out the connection to CampusWatch.org and Lynne Cheney's group--as opponents of "Free Speech".

I wonder if you would like to say a word about LIBERAL's rights to Free Speech on Campus?

Or is it only conservatives that you feel compelled to defend?

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. I defend free speech

I defend it here, I defend it there. I defend it everywhere.

It's not free unless it's ALL free.

One of these days you will learn that.

BTW, did you READ the artcile and what the individual in question is doing?

[edzontar]

7. Yes-good article...

I did not appreciate your "Editorial", however.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Like I care

Funny thing about freedom, you get the good with the bad. You get Nazis marching through Skokie and Kluckers holding public rallies. At the same time, you get freedom marches on Washington and public servants like the man in this article.

[edzontar]

12. Thanks for the lecture on freedom

I really needed to learn that from you.

Jeez.

[UpInArms]

3. we definitely need more people like Aftergood

and his name is so very appropriate "Aftergood" - after good - he goes after the good things and attempts through his individual efforts to affect the open society that we all seek.

these paragraphs were particularly nice

Included in that disclosure process, Aftergood says, should be the White House, which has refused to release relevant copies of the President's Daily Brief to Congress and independent investigators seeking to learn what U.S. intelligence officials told President Bush about the threat from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network before Sept. 11, 2001, and, separately, about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"It's taken for granted that it's sacrosanct," Aftergood said. "The White House should identify the sensitive information and sources" and remove those. But "the idea that the whole thing should be secret is pure mystification."

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Thanks

It's good to see somebody around here gets it.

[UpInArms]

5. shortly after 9/11

9/30/01 to be exact -

I had an in-person confrontation with a winger that I know - it became an almost full fledged shouting match in a very public place.

Afterwards (because we were working in an open market atmosphere), I went over to this person and said - you know, it really doesn't matter if we disagree about all of these things - you do have a right to your opinion and to speak it out as loudly as you want - that is what freedom of speech is about and I will defend your right to say your mind with everything within me.

She looked at me and it was as if a dam broke within her - knowing that no matter how we disagreed on everything else, we both agreed upon the premise of our whole nation - the Constitution.

Only if there is an open discourse of opinion - and remember there are at least three sides to every coin; the top the bottom and the ring around it, can we progress into the future.

When any group becomes so powerful that through force the discourse is silenced - then we have a problem.

It is important always to recognize who and what is driving any message that seems to dominate any discussion. Are there ulterior motives or are there some underlying dangers? Those are important pieces of knowledge.

But the free flow of information and knowledge is still the foundation for rational thought.

Thanks for posting the news article - it was full of good information and I have gone to Aftergood's site and signed up for his newsletter.

[Nlighten1]

6. I send Steve email on occasions...

regarding his Secrecy email newsletter. He is a very nice gentleman who is doing a valuable service.

[R Hickey]

8. Muddle, where do you draw the line on free speech?

Apparently you draw the line somewhat differently than I do.

When do you consider speech illegal? Do you recognize the concept of conspiracy? Is your right to shout fire in a crowded theater protected by the First Amendment?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Hard to make a blanket answer

In general, I am not a free speech absolutist, but I believe in it VERY strongly. All rights are limited, but if we go nuts, we end up in Germany 1940 or the old Soviet Union.

So, no, you can't shout, "fire." Or actually, you can, but you can be locked up for it. To stop it would be prior restraint.

[0007]

11. Sir, I don't believe we're on the same page -

I read everyone of your replies with the other posters and I disagree with you in all respects, but I do defend your right to your opinion.