Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: STIMSON CENTER: CENSOR ENVIRO WEB SITES


From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:31:29 -0500


Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:45:16 -0500
To: farber () cis upenn edu
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Subject: from Declan's FC list

I was very troubled by the anti-dissent targeting suggested in this article that Declan included in FC, from the FAS Secrecy newsletter. I suppose we can use concerns about arbitrary bogeymen to justify just about any action by our government.

[This is from Steven Aftergood's Secrecy News, published by the
Federation of American Scientists and available here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html Amy Smithson's bio is here
(alas, it lacks an email address for her):
http://www.stimson.org/stimson/smithson.htm I invite her or the center to
reply. --Declan]

STIMSON CENTER: CENSOR ENVIRO WEB SITES
In a startling plea for official censorship, Amy E. Smithson of the
Henry L. Stimson Center last week urged the government to "close down"
web sites run by environmental organizations if they publish information
about hazardous materials in local communities around the country since
such information could be used by terrorists.
"In this day and age, Washington can no longer afford to hand any
interested individual a road map to the chemical calamities they could
cause with the toxic materials located in communities nationwide,"
Smithson testified at a House Transportation subcommittee hearing last
week on "Right to Know After September 11th." The hearing examined the
policies governing public disclosure of chemical hazards at various
industrial facilities.
In particular, Smithson said, the government must clamp down on those
environmental organizations that have published information on hazardous
material inventories and accident consequences, including information
that has now been withdrawn from government web sites.
"Immediately, these interest groups must cease and desist activities
that make data on hazardous materials facilities available to widespread
public view, removing this data from their websites," she said.
"Failing their voluntary cooperation, the US government should take
swift steps to close down the pertinent segments of these organizations'
websites and take legal steps to prohibit them from distributing this
data in the future on the Internet or by other means," Smithson
instructed.
Dr. Smithson has been widely quoted for her expertise and opinions
concerning chemical and biological weapons policy. The Henry L. Stimson
Center is a mainstream policy research and advocacy organization whose
declared motto is "Practical steps to ideal solutions." But the new
censorship proposal hardly fits that description.
Smithson's testimony on this point invited disbelief because she
blithely made several assumptions that are questionable or simply
incorrect, including: (a) there is no countervailing benefit to the
independent publication of information about hazardous materials; (b) it
is possible for the government to effectively suppress information that
has been privately published on the web; and (c) it would be legally and
constitutionally permissible to attempt to do so.
An opposing view was presented at the hearing by environmentalist
Jeremiah Baumann of the advocacy organization US PIRG.
"The right to know is a proven tool for increasing public safety," he
argued. "Choosing restrictions on the public's right to know about
hazards in communities, rather than actually reducing those hazards, can
hurt safety rather than help it."
Speaking pragmatically, Elaine Stanley of the Environmental Protection
Agency outlined the four criteria the EPA has developed for deciding
what to publish and what to remove from the Agency's web site.
All of the prepared testimony from the November 8 hearing on Right to
Know After September 11th may be found here:
http://www.house.gov/transportation/water/11-08-01/11-08-01memo.html


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: