Abstract:
Politically or ideologically motivated speech has been the primary focus of
much of the recent political, legal, and academic debate on restrictions on
speech imposed as a reaction to perceived threats to national and
international security. However, restrictions imposed on informing speech as
a response to the threat of terrorism raise equally serious concerns. The
development of the body of knowledge relies on the free flow of information,
including persuasive speech. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11 and
the subsequent anthrax attacks in the US, the issue of censorship of scientific
information has been subject of debate in both government and scientific
circles.
This paper analyses the ways restrictions affect the dissemination of
knowledge-based information arising from the censoring of scholarly
scientific' journals, and at what point a balance can be found between
scientific freedom and national security. Is censorship the most appropriate
response to the perceived threat of terrorists utilising published scientific
information? Can an objective and rational assessment of the threat of
terrorism be made in the current political climate? Consideration is given to
alternatives to the implementation of a regime of censorship that could be
tailored to limit the burden imposed on research in any trade off between
scientific progress and national security concerns.
