---------- 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