THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW GOVERNMENT INFORMATION: ITS AFFIRMATION AND ABRIDGEMENT (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, NATIONAL SECURITY, CENSORSHIP)

This study examined the public's access to politically relevant information in the custody of the executive branch of the national government. Its premise was that, in a self-governing society, the people are entitled to know information concerning official actions and intentions, sufficient to express their intelligent consent or dissent to government. Therefore, an examination was made of the controversial idea that there is a political right to know important government information, and that such a right should be afforded constitutional protection.; A broad survey was conducted of relevant statutory and common law, federal regulations, executive orders, Supreme Court opinions, congressional hearings and investigations, constitutional provisions, and the writings of the authors of the Constitution and modern historians. Scholarly commentary on political theory, journalism and the law, particulary on First Amendment issues, was also surveyed. Interviews with selected law scholars were conducted.; The findings indicate that in certain areas of national security and law enforcement, there is excessive concealment and distortion of official information for political rather than legitimate security purposes. Further, there is evidence that members of the Supreme Court function as part of an extra-constitutional political sub-system to support discretionary executive authority that abridges public access and publishing rights. The Court's apparent cooptation on such matters has led to limited autocracy that arbitrarily denies politically important to the public.; It was concluded that Congress and the Supreme Court no longer function as an effective check on executive powers, primarily because the executive may operate in secrecy on what should be matters of public debate. In order to restore the balance essential to limited government and representative democracy, the executive branch's assumption of powers must be matched by the recognition of constitutional protection for the public's right to know government actions and intentions.; Deceptive government speech was also examined, and it was concluded that, because it represents an effective censorship of facts, it should only be employed where censorship is justifiable; i.e., in national emergencies that do not permit opportunity for public discussion.