From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 11:55:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.971024204540.26025u-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:07:23 +0000
From: "Glen L. Roberts" <glr@glr.com>
To: declan@well.com, noah@pathfinder.com
Subject: Office of the Secretary of Defense vs the First Amendment


From: Glen L. Roberts, PO Box 1533, Oil City, PA 16301
      (814) 676-2345

re:   Office of the Secretary of Defense
                       vs
      The First Amendment


Attn: Seema Singh


Dear Senator Arlen Spector:

I am in receipt of correspondence from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, dated October 7, 1997. (Copy attached) They appear to be
asking me to stop quoting certain parts of the U.S. Congressional
Record.

Obviously, citizens of the United States have a First Amendment right,
if not an obligation, to express their opinions on matters relating to
the operation of the Government. The DoD, it would appear, is
requesting that I not express my opinions, when such expressions
include certain portions of the Congressional Record, or that I
"excise" my commentary to help cover up their mis-deads. Does the
First Amendment give me the right to express my views, or to express
my views only in accordance with the desires of the DoD?

I can understand the concern and embarassment the DoD may feel by my
highlighting certain portions of the Congressional Record and taking
issue with them. However, I would think that for any government
accountibility to take place, such commentaries are not only proper,
but also a necessity. The First Amendment clearly setsforth my right
to take issue with governmental polices and actions. I do not think it
is within the proper bounds of the DoD to suggest how I may express
myself, or what words might be appropriate or inappropriate to use in
such expressions.

If I were to read between the lines, I would conclude that the DoD is
attempting to place the burden of their improper activities upon my
shoulders. That is, if I stop reprinting the Congressional Record; no
one will understand the problem and it will go away! Completely
disregarding the public nature and purpose of the Congressional
Record. For if I cannot freely quote from the Congressional Record,
why has the Library of Congress moved to increase public availablity
and access to it: "Acting under the directive of the leadership of the
104th Congress to make Federal legislative information freely
available to the Internet public, a Library of Congress team brought
the THOMAS World Wide Web system online in January 1995, at the
inception of the 104th Congress."

There are a number of possible ways that the DoD might seek to resolve
the underlying problems of which I have brought attention to on my web
pages, radio broadcasts and publications. I fail to understand how
adjusting my commentary to meet the desires of the DoD will correct a
stupid mistake they made years ago, and continued for years.
Eliminating the attention will serve only to cover up and avoid any
resolution of the problem.

I request your assistance in supporting my First Amendment rights.


-------------------------
(any typeos in the following are mine)

Office of the Secretary of Defense
1950 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC 202301-1950

Adminstration
& Management

Octover 7, 1997

Mr. Glen L. Roberts
P.O. Box 1533
Oil City, PA 16301

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This Department has taken the position in a wide variety of contexts
that disclosure of the social security number constitutes a clearly
unwarranted invasion of an individual's personal privacy. Therefore,
the Department is as concerned as you are regarding the public
availablity of the SSN and strongly believes that the general public
should not have access to such numbers.

As you have said, teh Department no longer provides the full social
security number to Congress because we recognized and correct what was
then a problem. Unfortunately, the numbers currently exact in print
and at public websites. But this fact does not mean that we should not
minimize, when possible, the proliferation of such lists. Although
your apparent goal to obtain greater privacy protection for the
individual is certainly laudable, publishing consolidated listings on
your website perpetrates and exaverbates the very problem you are
attemping to address. Put differently, such publications disregards
the very privacy interests you are seeking to protect. Though the
lists are available elsewhere, you are making it much simpler to find
them because the other sites are not always easy to locate.

Therefore, consideration should be given to the deletion of the lists,
or in the alternative, excision of the SSN, from your webpage. Either
action on your part will demonstrate, not only by word, but by deed, a
sensitivity that others have ignored, in that, you have elected to
pursure an approach where your advocacy requirements have been
balanced against the privacy interests of the individual.

Sincerely,

//s//

Aurello Nepa, Jr.
Director
Defense Privacy Office