Academic journal article Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Security Reviews of Media Reports on Military Operations: A Response to Professor Lee

Academic journal article Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Security Reviews of Media Reports on Military Operations: A Response to Professor Lee

Article excerpt

I.   CASE LAW ON MEDIA ACCESS
II.  THE ROLE OF SECURITY REVIEWS IN
     PROTECTING THE MILITARY MISSION
III. A PRUDENT APPROACH TO MILITARY/
     MEDIA RELATIONS
IV.  CONCLUSION

Professor William E. Lee argued in a recent article in this journal that military security reviews of media reports as practiced during the Persian Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom were inconsistent with First Amendment freedoms. (1) In his article, Professor Lee conceded "the notion that the First Amendment right of access developed by the Supreme Court in the context of judicial proceedings does not transfer to wartime military operations." (2) However, he drew the questionable conclusion that "[p]reventing access to places or government information is less harmful to free expression than government action that prevents or punishes publication of information the press has acquired." (3) In making his argument, Professor Lee questioned the assertion of mine in a 1995 article that security reviews were an acceptable means for the military to control the release of sensitive information for national security purposes. (4)

Professor Lee was correct in his assertion that the military may limit media access to the battlefield. Although litigation on behalf of media organizations has not resulted in a definitive decision regarding media access to the battlefield, (5) there is a line of cases that establishes that the government may limit access to activities when there is a compelling interest to do so. (6) The cases addressing the government's control of information under certain compelling circumstances lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the military's press restrictions, such as security reviews, are constitutionally permissible. Further, conditioning media access to military operations on military security reviews is a longstanding tradition in combat journalism and an important tool for the military to use to ensure that the security of operations not be compromised. Certainly the military should apply this tool judiciously, so as not to interfere unduly with fair reporting of the news. However, to simply limit reporters' access to information or establish ground rules for reporting information about operations, as Professor Lee suggests, (7) and then to trust the media to follow those ground rules is, from both a public policy and an operational security standpoint, worse than the security reviews. Instead, the military must follow a consistent policy regarding handling of media during military operations, including security reviews as necessary, but allowing as much media access as possible under operational circumstances. Certainly there is a tension at times between the media's desire to report the news and the military's need to control sensitive information; nevertheless, in instances when that tension exists, the discretion of the commander in the field to determine how and when to control information must prevail.

I. CASE LAW ON MEDIA ACCESS

"Due to the reluctance of the press to sue the government during wartime," Professor Lee wrote, "judicial involvement in the relationship between the press and the military is highly unlikely." (8) However, the media have not shown such a reluctance to sue the military over access. (9) Rather, the abbreviated nature of recent international conflicts and the mootness doctrine have combined to limit judicial intervention in the media-military relationship. During the invasion of Grenada in 1983, for instance, the media were outraged after being kept off the island for two days following the initial invasion. (10) Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt took the military to court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, but the case was dismissed as moot. (11) The district court further determined that the case did not meet the requirements of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine, because there was no "reasonable expectation" that the controversy would recur. …

Author Advanced search

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.