Mrs. Allende is neither the first nor the last foreigner to be denied entrance into the U.S. On June 7, 1983, it was learned --Rev. Ian Paisley, Protestant leader from Northern --Owen Carron, I.R.A. leader; --Trevor Monroe, Jamaican Marxist scholar; --Julio Garcia Espinosa, Deputy Cultural Minister --Several Cuban philosophers; --Approximately 320 delegates from Japan, Australia, The Reagan Administration's use of the Walter-McCarran Act is a paradigmatic illustration of its fear that an informed citizenry is a threat to its reign. By barring visitors, the Administration hopes to shut out views it does not want Americans to hear. Free Speech, 1984: The Rise of Government Controls on Information, Debate and Association was written by Loren Siegel, special assistant to ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser, with the assistance of the following ACLU staff members: Morton Halperin, director of the Center for National Security Studies; John Shattuck, director of the national legislative office; Burt Neuborne, legal director; Jerry Berman, legislative counsel; and Charles Sims, staff counsel. American Civil Liberties Union 132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 ACLU National Legislative Office 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003 Center for National Security Studies (a project of the ACLU and the Fund for Peace) 122 Maryland Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 Volume 1 Number 1 1984 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY An International Journal of Resources, Services, Policies, and Practices ents by officials have and technology to the During the past few years, various government actions and s of both scientific communication and scientific achievement in the United States. Although American scientists are willing to concede that such transfers have occurred, of the need for lumuted official secrecy or national security safeguards, or are unaware of the potential mistary applications of the research and discovenes, indeed, in taking issue with new nacional security limits on scientiắc communication, American scientists Copyright © 1984 by JAJ Prus bac. AB rights of reprod GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 1/No. 1/1984 appear to be neither politically naive about nor unappreciative of the position of their country in the continuously tense international arena. Certainly they are disturbed about the effect of such restrictions on the scientific process. Ideally, all scientific findings, conclusions, and interpretations should be publicly and generally available, open to criticism as well as improvement, and, if necessary, rejection. The vague nature of the controls being advocated by officials also is troubling. Not the least of their worries, moreover, is the pragmatic effect of new national security restrictions on scientific communication. The strength and safety of the nation will not be maintained or improved if scientific and technological progress and innovation are inhibited as a result of limitations on the dissemination of scientific information.' This point was well stated in the now famous report on a program for postwar scientific research which Dr. Vannevar Bush submitted to the President in 1945: Basically there is no reason to believe that scientists of other countries will not in time re-discover everything we now know. A sounder foundation for our national security rests in a broad dissemination of scientific knowledge upon which further advances can be more readily made than in a policy of restriction which would impede our further advances in the hope that our potential enemies will not catch up with us.' Indeed, national security results from achievement in science, not from concealment.' And "science" and "national security" are not necessarily antagonistic to one another. In the past, scientists and government leaders have demonstrated a broad appreciation of the national security concept, including not only military applications and preparations, but also economic, cultural, and psychological considerations. In its most meaningful context, national security is not defined by Soviet military capability alone. THE BALANCE SHEET CONCEPT Some years ago, in analyzing the tension between national security and individual freedom, the late Harold D. Lasswell concluded that American security measures should be the outcome of a comprehensive process of balancing the costs and benefits of all policies in the foreign and domestic fields.” A national security determination, he wrote, ............is properly a policy judgment rather than an expert opinion.” Many complex considerations must be assessed. **Judgments of security," counseled Lasswell, “are balance sheets of our present and prospective position as a nation under all thinkable conditions and policies." The balance sheet on increased national security control of scientific communication is under formulation. The issue, it may be argued, was opened for consideration by recent government actions, assertions, and policy recommendations. Moreover, the development of such a balance sheet seemingly is prompted by current efforts to rewrite the International Traffic in Arms Regulations' and by the necessity to renew the automatically expiring Export Administration Act.* Both of these authorities have been used more stringently of late to limit scientific communication. The formulation of a balance sheet on national security restriction of scientific communication, as some may recall, is not unprecedented. Although his portrayal has a very contemporary character, the late Lloyd V. Berkner was describing the situation as it was three decades ago when he wrote that "all the important ideas of science have military implications and, under our present policies, must therefore fall inevitably under the cloak 40-209 O 85 - 21 |