First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
Discouraging words: the war on information
Inside the First Amendment

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center ombudsman

Louis Fisher is one of the nation’s foremost experts on American government and separation of powers. For 35 years, he has provided nonpartisan research for members of Congress and their staffs as a scholar at the Congressional Research Service, a part of the Library of Congress.

And he’s in trouble.

Fisher has built a sterling reputation as a fair and unflinching analyst, drawing praise from colleagues, other scholars, think tanks and public-interest groups — and even grudging respect from partisans on both sides of the aisle in Congress who have not always been happy with where the facts have led him.

A few measures of the 71-year-old senior specialist’s credibility: He has testified before Congress 38 times and has published 16 books and hundreds of scholarly articles in addition to all of his CRS reports. His work is cited in congressional testimony and Supreme Court briefs.

Despite all that, he has been called on the carpet for not being sufficiently “neutral” in his outside work. That included an article published in Political Science Quarterly titled, “Deciding on War Against Iraq: Institutional Failures,” and a recent interview with Government Executive magazine in which he suggested that Congress had been overly deferential to the administration’s penchant for secrecy and insufficiently protective of government whistleblowers.

Fisher’s bosses may be looking over their shoulders, too. Congress has cut the CRS budget. Staff is being reduced. And from time to time, they receive a harsh letter from someone like the powerful chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who complained recently that two reports related to the National Security Agency’s warrantless-surveillance program were biased.

By itself, the sad saga unfolding at CRS would be enough to make employees elsewhere in government think twice before sharing information with Congress, or the American public, their real employer. Inexorably, the sound of silence is spreading throughout the federal government.

At NASA, political appointees have been interfering with what the agency’s scientists — including James Hansen, a leading authority on global warming — can say in lectures, online presentations and press interviews. A review of those guidelines is promised.

Meanwhile, officials at EPA continue to insist on screening all contacts with the press by its scientists.

Not even speech as a private citizen escapes the watchful eye of officials. For example, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs last fall launched an investigation into whether criticism of the administration in a VA nurse’s letter to a weekly newspaper in Albuquerque was an act of sedition.

If there are any doubts about the administration’s hard-line stance on government-employee speech, its brief in a case before the Supreme Court should dispel them. The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, presents the question of whether the First Amendment protects job-related speech, even when it is a matter of public concern. The solicitor general, on behalf of the United States, argues that it does not.

Ironically, while government officials suppress speech and punish criticism by others, they are greatly expanding the boundaries of their own speech.

Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flayed the U.S. press for getting in the way of such Pentagon initiatives as planting articles in the Iraqi press, hiring private contractors to influence information in Iraq and elsewhere, and engaging in disinformation operations. Noting how “our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age,” Rumsfeld called for even more aggressive information dissemination operations in the form of a “strategic communications framework.”

And while the Pentagon targets foreign audiences, other federal agencies target American citizens. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that in two and a half years, seven agencies spent $1.6 billion on media and advertising, including government-produced video news releases that both the GAO and Congress labeled “covert propaganda.”

These developments, combined with aggressive tactics for withholding information from Congress, the courts, scholars, historians, the press and the people, represent a sea change in information policies that have sustained and vitalized our democracy for more than two centuries.

This new climate of fear and intimidation is discouraging the very words that drive democratic decision-making in the right direction.

The authors of these policies appear to have thought neither long nor hard about the long-term consequences of such policies. The implications for good government and democracy, as well as the First Amendment, are profound.

A strategy of withholding, manipulating and distorting information to control and defeat our enemies works also to mislead and control allies and citizens alike. Moreover, we are careening dangerously toward an information environment that not only punishes dissenters and critics but those who are insufficiently laudatory.

As a nation, we should not gaze wistfully toward the tactics of tyrannies and terrorists as a possible model for our own information policies. To do so would plunge us into a deplorable mistrust of honesty and openness as a way of winning the hearts and minds of our enemies, not to mention the trust and support of our citizenry.

Paul K. McMasters is First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. E-mail:


VA nurse's letter to newspaper prompts sedition probe

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., wants to know why veterans' agency would investigate employee for writing letter criticizing Bush administration. 02.08.06

New York Times sues seeking eavesdropping documents
Newspaper asks court to order Defense Department to comply with FOIA request or provide lawful reason why it cannot. 02.28.06

Agencies to probe whether administration muzzled climate research
Spokeswoman for White House Council for Environmental Quality says 'claims that the administration interfered with scientists are false.' 11.03.06

Government bosses bite back at agency watchdogs
'It's hard to believe that the government is serious about policing itself when it's whacking the people who are actually minding the store,' says director of waste-tracking group. 12.28.06

Scientists claim White House controlled climate message
Senate, House hold hearings into whether Bush administration 'suppressed and manipulated' data on global warming. 02.01.07

Smithsonian accused of watering down climate-change exhibit
Former administrator says museum officials toned down Arctic exhibit for fear of angering Congress, Bush administration. 05.23.07

Surgeon general says Bush officials muzzled him
Dr. Richard Carmona tells Congress that his speeches were edited by political appointees, he was told not to talk about certain issues including sex education. 07.11.07

Scientist says CDC bosses ignored pleas about FEMA trailers
Toxicologist Christopher De Rosa tells congressional panel that he was told not to write e-mails about his concerns. 04.03.08

Fear of dissent is a fear of freedom
By Paul K. McMasters The more unpopular the protest, the more our courts — and we as citizens — are tested in our commitment to the First Amendment. 10.23.05

Bad news for good journalism
By Paul K. McMasters Legal onslaught of subpoenas, grand jury inquiries against press is matched by pace of federal government secret-making. 03.26.06

When truth is in short supply, democracy is in danger
By Paul K. McMasters FOI-request delays, growing cult of government secrecy threatens our ability to have a say in how we are governed. 09.10.06

Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech

CRS reports for Congress on First Amendment topics

Analysis/Commentary summary page
View the latest analysis and commentary throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Friday, July 25, 2008 | 02:02:30
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links