BLOCK REAGAN'S CRUDE ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00561R000100030009-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 9, 2012
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: December 8, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030009-9
ARTI CLE APPE R
ON PAGE _Iql
Block
Reagan's
Crude
Attempt at
Censorship
By Townsend Hoopes
WASHINGTON - President Rea-
gan's Directive 84 on-safe
national security information," a fia-
grant piece.=of right-wing zealotry,
would repress or gravely distort First
Amendment freedoms. Fortunately,
Congress recently provided a tempo-
rary reprieve by passing a measure
that postpones the effective date of
the directive until April 1. President
Reagan has signed that measure, per.
haps reflecting a dawning awareness
in* the Administration that this crude
attempt at mass censorship should be
reconsidered. -
The centerpiece is the requirement
for a prepublication review that
would be imposed on present and for.
mer Federal Government officials.
This is a brazen move to emasculate
the First Amendment rights of per-
haps 100,000 employees, including
those at the highest levels.
It would require these people, while
in Federal Government service and
after they have lefttbe Government,
to submit all of their writings and
public utterances for review, whether
or not the subject relates in any way
to that service and whether or not any
classified information is involved.
An Administration seokesman has
said that the review reoutiement
covers only writings about "intelfi.
aence matters." but the laneuaae of .
the directive covers not onl books .
a_ad- e a ci_es
to the editor book reviews s es
an_ eeture~oJ s, Moreover, the re-
quirement has no time limit - It is a
'lifetime sentence.
NEW YORK TIMES
8 December 1983
The Constitution forbids the Gov-
ernment to impose prior restraint on
speech; historically, the Government
has invoked only limited censorship
even in wartime. No responsible per-
son denies the Federal Government's
need to protect against disclosure of
information truly crucial to national
security interests, but this directive
would create a comprehensive Sys.
?tem of prior restraint without prece-
dent in United States history - and
without any justification based on the
record. It would mark the beginning
of an expansion of the Government's
bate, the nitpicking review process
could effectively destroy the -author's
opportunity to influence that debate.
Some books have been enmeshed in
the tl Intelligence Agency's
clearance procedures for two wars,
and have then emersed only because
the author concededsriticalpoints,_
Mints he felt be could have won in
court but which he forfeited to and the
defer and to avoi a y, time-con.
sumrngTuit.
In addition, Directive 84 might
oblige publishers to police an author's
adherence to his clearance agree. j
power to Censor, which could bb un- meat. It remains an open question
The directive would severely affect
the quality of public debate on issues
of overriding importance, especially
issues of defense and foreign policy.
It is precisely those people required
to sign the constricting agreements
who can provide valuable guides to
future policy making. To require
them to submit their works for clear-.
ance would of course inevitably di-
minish the candor, and thus the in-
trinsic value, of what they write.
Their books would not fully reflect
their Insights gained in service, and policy would bye
the poorer for diminished public de.
bate. , _ .
How much would the nation have
lost if it had been, forced to make do
with only the sanitized views of, say,
Henry L. Stimson, George F. Kenna,
David E. Lilienthal, George W. Ball
and DeanAchesonn?
The directive would place the Gov-
ernment squarely astride the publish.
ing process, flagrantly interfering
with free expression. Government of.
ficials would judge what is newswor.
thy in prospective books and articles.
At the very least, their participation
would introduce paralyzing delays in
the publishing process; such delays
could wither the incentive to write
and publish political works, espe.
cially when the material is topical
and perishable.
Even If the Federal Government
avoided blatantly killing a book,-the
directive would subject the publish.
ing process to conditions certain to
produce the same result. For exam.
ple, the directive requires that writ-
ten materials be -submitted to the
Government before an author even
approaches a publisher. If the subject
of the book or article related to a topi.
cal public issue whose resolution piv-
oted on the outcome of national de-
Whether the Government would be
able to confiscate revenues earned by
a publisher from a manuscript writ-
:ten by a person who had violated a
clearance agreement. This uncer-
tainty, too, could make 'Publishers
wary of accepting manuscripts writ-
ten by former officials.
If the American people will look
squarely at the facts and implications
of Directive 84, they will not allow
this absurd and dangerous situation
to continue - in a country built upon
the free and unfettered exchange of
ideas.
Townsend Hoopes is president of the
hAssoeiation o f American Publishers.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/09: CIA-RDP91-00561 R000100030009-9