Secrecy, free speech
must be balancedThe issue: The White House wants
TV networks to minimize bin
Laden's taped appearances.The Bush administration's request that television networks not broadcast in its entirety videotaped statements of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts edges along the boundaries of censorship.
Without offering any evidence, the White House warned network executives that bin Laden could be using his inflammatory messages to relay coded instructions for terrorist operatives to launch attacks against the United States. The administration also expressed concern about providing the terrorists with outlets for their propaganda. It is considering asking newspapers and magazines not to publish complete texts of bin Laden's statements for the same reasons.
The videotape that prompted the administration's request was broadcast Sunday, just after the United States began its offensive in Afghanistan. The video, in which bin Laden and his attendants railed against America, was aired by the Al Jazeera satellite television station, based in Qatar, and picked up by American networks.
Such secret messages have precedent. During World War II, French resistance forces knew to listen for coded phrases in the speeches of Winston Churchill broadcast over the BBC. However, in this case, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who at first cited "suspicions" and "the possibility" that bin Laden could be signaling operatives, finally conceded that U.S. intelligence agencies have no evidence that the terrorist leader was doing so. "There's no hard indication," he said.
Even so, network executives agreed to evaluate such videos before showing them, which is a reasonable response and which should be standard procedure in responsible news judgment. But the administration must acknowledge that with today's global communications anyone can tune in to foreign broadcasts or log on to the Web for the same material. As for propaganda, if future statements from bin Laden are anything like Sunday's, they will certainly not sway this country to his beliefs and will only result in strengthening Americans' resolve. The propaganda argument is also fatuous; spin control is a practiced art form in Washington.
The administration's attempt to control the media illustrates the delicate nature of balancing national security and the free flow of information that is at the heart of our democracy. As keenly aware as news organizations are about the need for restraint to safeguard Americans and our military forces, so must our leaders recognize that the public is entitled to a free flow of information. Responsible journalists will respond when government truly needs secrecy, but will become skeptical if it cries wolf too often.
Protests won change
in demonstration rulesThe issue: The city lessens restrictions
on demonstrations and
gatherings in public parks.BEFORE the Asian Development Bank convened here in May, authorities vowed to prevent "illegal mass demonstrations." However, the laws that would have made the demonstrations illegal were themselves unconstitutionally oppressive. The city lost a court challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union and has agreed to rewrite ordinances governing peaceful demonstrations.
The settlement comes as civil liberties are perceived as being under threat by security measures taken since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America. It is a reminder that freedom of expression should not be compromised even in times of national duress. The anti-globalization protest had no effect on world trade policies but was successful in assuring freedoms for future demonstrators.
Honolulu police initially tried to enforce ordinances that would have required protesters to submit applications for demonstration permits at least 40 days in advance and to purchase $500,000 in general liability insurance. Public park gatherings required prior notification of least three weeks. A federal judge ordered the onerous requirements to be set aside, and the protesters were granted a permit for as many as 7,000 protesters. Only 500 showed up.
The city's resistance cost taxpayers $87,500 in legal expenses incurred by the ACLU for a case that should have been quickly settled out of court. In the end, the city agreed to change the ordinances to allow demonstration applications to be submitted five working days in advance and to waive the insurance requirement for those unable to afford it. Notices of gatherings in parks can be given as little as 24 hours in advance when prompted by current affairs.
"Our primary emphasis was not trying to impose conditions on ADB marchers but to ensure safety" at the convention center and on the streets, says Greg Swartz, a deputy corporation counsel.
Local authorities had prepared for unruly demonstrations in Honolulu following violent protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle and the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. A more rational look at the upcoming demonstrations in Honolulu and a willingness to establish dialogue with the protesters prior to the ADB conference would have modified those expectations.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, President
John Flanagan, publisher and editor in chief 529-4748; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.com The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
