Last week Wikileaks announced that it discovered that U.S. officials at Guantanamo Bay were secretly altering various websites to promote the detention center in the news and online generally.

Being a defender of the First Amendment, CDT has always supported the right of citizens to speak anonymously in our free and democratic society. We’ve noted the practical value of this right, which encourages the sharing of valuable ideas and information that might otherwise go unexpressed due to fear of reprisal. And we certainly support the government’s participation in online discussion sites – when that participation is acknowledged. But the U.S. military’s anonymous tinkering with online information for apparent public relations purposes raises some real concerns. This also raises some tough First Amendment questions, but without a doubt it’s a very serious issue of government transparency, or lack thereof.

A couple years back, it came to light that some federal agencies had produced fake “news” stories (Video News Releases) without notice to viewers that the federal government produced them. The Government Accountability Office found that this was a violation of the law. It also reviewed at least two instances in which ostensibly independent journalists were paid to promote Administration policies. The GAO found one journalist’s contract to be a violation of the law and the other not, still the revelations sparked enough of a public outcry to inspire President Bush to terminate the use of this outrageous tactic.

One now wonders whether President Bush would approve of Gitmo officials on his watch anonymously altering Wikipedia pages. According to Wikileaks, the officials are also “systematic[ally] posting unattributed ‘self praise’ comments on news organization web sites in response to negative press” and “boosting pro-Guantanamo stories on the internet news site Digg.” While the military’s motivation to do these things is obvious, the question is whether it or any sector of the government should be able to secretly push unattributed government propaganda for consumption in the United States.

Some law already exists on this issue. Appropriations acts since 1951 have routinely included the prohibition: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” This is what the GAO relied on in evaluating the Video News Releases and the public relations contracts with the journalists, and the GAO has interpreted this language as prohibiting “covert propaganda” – meaning PR communications not attributed to the government. But is this enough? Some members of Congress didn’t think so. In 2005, two similar bills were introduced: the “Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act” (H.R. 373) and the “Stop Government Propaganda Act” (S. 266). Both bills died in committee.

But perhaps Congress should revisit the question. To be sure, there are some very difficult legislative drafting challenges. We would not want to impose inappropriate free speech constraints on federal employees who are not acting in their official capacity. And it may be reasonable in some narrow circumstances to allow the government to post unattributed content on websites that are clearly aimed at overseas populations. But it seems crystal clear that our government should not be permitted to manipulate online discussion forums and information sources aimed at Americans, without disclosing the governmental source of the changes or new information.

When the White House issues a press release, or a government-created Public Service Announcement is broadcast on TV, the fact that the government is the source of the information is clear, and the public can take it for what it’s worth. But secretly altering Wikipedia pages or posing as regular citizens when commenting on online news stories is something entirely different. The public debate – the marketplace of ideas, which is key to a free and democratic society – is skewed when the government talks but fails to identify itself. The problem isn’t only that taxpayer money has been used to contract for the spin services of others (as in the fake “news” videos) – but that taxpayer money is now paying the salaries of government officials who are themselves acting as the spin doctors without identifying themselves as such. This is an egregious violation of the principle of government transparency. It may be time for Congress to look again at this issue.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am and is filed under CDT, Free Expression, Open Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.