Guest post from journalist Sarah Olson: “Help me fight government censorship of personal, political speech!”
|
Posted by Guest Blogger January 29th, 2007 |
Stand Up for Freedom of the Press: Help Me Fight Government Subpoena
GUEST POST by Sarah Olson
On June 22nd, U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to refuse to deploy to the Iraq War. Just one week from today, on February 5th a court-martial will begin where he faces one count of “missing movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” Each of the latter four charges is based on public statements Lt. Watada made about the Iraq war.
To make these charges stick, the Army has subpoenaed myself and another journalist to testify as the Army’s witness at the upcoming court-martial. Up to four other reporters have also been placed on the Army’s witness list, but have not yet been subpoenaed. The Army says it only wants me to verify the accuracy of my printed interview with Lt. Watada, which isn’t something with which journalists have a problem. What’s odd about this is that the Army can download audio recordings of Lt. Watada and verify his statements themselves from my interview with him for Making Contact, a weekly international program by the National Radio Project.
They don’t need me at all.
This is one of the reasons I’ve been objecting to the Army’s subpoena, as in this Editor & Publisher essay. My position is that it is not my job as a journalist to participate in a government prosecution of personal, political speech. The military is the only place I know of in the United States where a man could face up to four years in prison for making personal statements. Asking a journalist to collude with the government in an act of censorship is fundamentally untenable and should not be tolerated by people who care about a free press in this society.
When speech itself becomes the crime, journalists – quite literally – become the investigative arm of the government. If any reporter could be forced into court to assist in the prosecution of a particular perspective, who would speak to journalists? Phil Donahue cut to the heart of the this matter when, in a letter supporting my position, he asked: “What acts of conscience will never be known because an over reaching Federal Government looms over the powerless, local journalists who still have the passion for this kind of true story of courage?”
It’s a journalist’s job to report the news, not to participate in government prosecutions of political speech. As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial denouncing the subpoenas:
“No prosecutor should be able to conscript any reporter into being a deputy by compelling testimony about a statement made by a source — or go fishing for information beyond what a reporter presents in a story — unless it’s absolutely vital to protect U.S. citizens from crime or attack. This principle should apply whether or not the source was speaking in confidence, or whether or not the reporter works for a media organization.”
The Army’s subpoenas erode the barrier between the press and the government. It is essential that people are able to speak with journalists without fear of retribution or censure and with the government meddling in the publication of news, this is not guaranteed. Geneva Overholser, a professor at the Washington Bureau of the Missouri School of Journalism and the former ombudsman for the Washington Post, says in a statement about the impact of the Army’s subpoenas on the role of a free press in a democracy: “We are blessed in our nation to have a democratic government with one set of responsibilities, and a free press with another, both of them serving the public interest. When the government coerces the press to do the government’s work, the system breaks down.”
The Army’s attempt to haul journalists in front of a military court to participate in the prosecution of their source will fundamentally subvert the notion of a press free to gather news without government intervention. And as Norman Solomon points out in his recent column about these subpoenas: “People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They’re quick to praise it — unless the reporting goes beyond ere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable.”
It is essential that journalists not participate in attempts to silence particular perspectives unpopular with the current administration. It is clear that we need more debate in this society – not less. Allowing the military to subpoena journalists to prosecute anti-war members of the military silences debate, and shuts one important perspective out of the media all together. It is a simple point of fact that the Iraq war is now an unpopular war. The recent elections were seen as a referendum on the war. The Army’s own polls show that over half of the military is unhappy with the war; dissent within the ranks is on the rise. Can anyone honestly argue that it would be neutral or objective for journalists to ignore this dissent, on the part of the public or of the people who serve? Could it be helpful to our understanding of the events taking place in the Middle East for journalists to be forced to leave these perspectives out of our reporting?
Augustin Aguayo wanted to avoid another tour of duty in Iraq so badly that he climbed out his bedroom window when his officers came to escort him to plane taking him back to the Middle East. Ivan Brobeck will be released from military prison for his refusal to return to Iraq just as Lt. Watada’s court-martial begins. Increasing numbers of AWOL soldiers are fleeing to Canada. The Appeal for Redress now has over 1,200 signatures from active duty members of the military. While it started as an online petition, some signatories are now holding press conferences, attending demonstrations, and speaking out in other ways. This is hardly a controversial or analytic observation; it’s a simple statement of fact.
The prosecution of Lt. Watada for these speech related crimes would set legal precedent and political tone for dissent within the military for decades into the future. Should he be convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for speaking with me about his opposition to the Iraq war, what future soldier will agree to speak out publicly? In the middle of an unpopular war, with dissent among active duty soldiers rising, how could the public interest possibly be served by the silencing of this voice?
How is the public interest served if we allow the military to silence these voices, these “dissenting” voices that have now become the majority? Whether or not you believe the Iraq war is justified or right, it is incontrovertible that in order for the public to arrive at an informed decision about current events and important social and political issues – including the Iraq war – we must have access to complete information.
Certainly, if we banish the voices of Iraq veterans and active duty soldiers from the press, we miss one particularly informed perspective. This is an appalling act of censorship and, unfortunately, it is not just journalists who suffer. U.S residents suffer. Iraqi civilians suffer. The men and women fighting in Iraq suffer. The exclusion of voices like Lt. Watada’s furthers a one sided and incomplete understanding of one of the most important and defining events of our time. The elimination of dissent bolsters this administration’s assertions that we are bringing democracy and liberation to the Middle East, without acknowledging the rising discordance with that perspective. This is not the role of the press.
I ask that you join the growing ranks of people protesting the Army’s attempts to use journalists to silence the personal political speech of dissenting members of the military. Go to http://www.defendthepress.org today and send letters to the Army and the Pentegon, asking that they drop the subpoenas of journalists in the Lt. Watada court-martial. Tell members of Congress that all media workers must be free to report the news, and that people must be able to speak with journalists without fear of retribution or censure.
Please spread my message as far and wide as possible. One easy way to do so is to read, forward and blog about this action alert from Women In Media & News about my case.
Bio: Guest blogger Sarah Olson is an independent journalist and radio producer who lives and works in Oakland, California. Sarah has reported and produced for the National Radio Project, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Pacifica Radio, and Free Speech Radio News. She has consistently reported on difficult but important stories, including on Operation Save America’s attempts to shut down Mississippi’s last abortion clinic, on the situation in the West Bank following Yasser Arafat’s death, and on feminist health movements in India. Her articles have appeared in AlterNet, Editor & Publisher, Common Dreams, Truthout, ZNet, Left Turn, and Dollars & Sense. Sarah enjoys her work and loves writing the tougher stories that you don’t always hear about. She also believes that the right to free speech requires vigilant protection and that the First Amendment means nothing if we don’t use it.
January 30th, 2007 06:53
[…] As Olson noted in a guest post on WIMN yesterday before the supoena was dropped, […]
January 30th, 2007 06:58
[…] As Olson noted in a guest post on WIMN yesterday before the supoena was dropped, “When speech itself becomes the crime, journalists – quite literally – become the investigative arm of the government.” […]
January 31st, 2007 14:49
[…] On Monday, journalist Sarah Olson wrote an eloquent guest post to WIMN’s Voices explaining her battle to challenge a government subpoena that was aimed at enlisting journalists in the prosecution of political speech. […]