----- Original Message -----
From: armond simmons
To: ChicagoSunTimes
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:03 PM
Subject: Letters

 Thomas Lipscomb's article, "Students Have Appallingly Weak Grasp of Free Speech",   February 4, 2005, states, "Once the First Amendment was read to them, one third of the students felt it went "too far" in granting free speech and one half thought that the government should have the right to approve news stories".
 
From reading/watching the liberal national news media daily, flagrantly aid and abet the enemy with damaging information during wartime, it's no wonder that students question the moral and legal parameters involved.
 
The article touts the strict, ultra-liberal Academia regimen that favors a no-holds-barred press with no provisions for "voluntary domestic censorship" of the press during wartime.    For this reason, it may be prudent for present-day academics to consider revisiting military-media relations successes that contributed to our WWII victory; a war almost as major as our present world war (WWIII-to be?) on terrorism; our present war success being vastly more dependant upon military-media relations/battlefield censorship.

In Michael S. Sweeney's "Secrets of Victory", a review at: http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/sweeney_secrets.html , he accurately states, "Voluntary domestic censorship was one of the shared sacrifices of war for American journalists. On one hand, World War II was perhaps the most newsworthy event of the century, offering opportunities for lucrative and significant "scoops." On the other hand, no nation can fight a modern war by refusing to exercise some control of information. Journalists who wrote or broadcast stories about wartime secrets would, in effect, be handing the enemy a weapon. To prevent the disclosure of sensitive information during wartime requires a restraint that is distasteful to democracies; but if successful, such censorship can become what one memoir of World War II describes as a "weapon of silence." The dynamic question of the war for American journalists was whether they would agree to restrain themselves or report some of the biggest stories of their careers."

Haven't we learned that the very definition of terrorism dictates that acts of terror are only of value to terrorists if a resultant fear and terror attributed to those acts is transmitted to the intended vulnerable target; our home front?

(Definition: "Terrorists mean to frighten and thereby intimidate a wider audience such as an entire country and its political leadership." (Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia. All Rights Reserved.))

The unfettered US media, not only aids and abets the terrorists' essential tactic of dissemination of fear and terror, but has vigorously assumed that entire critical duty for the enemy.

Sadly, neither the academics, the press, the Congress nor the DOD appear to fathom the totally new type of defense that will be required to defeat psychological warfare (terrorism).

A High School student who watches the news just might.

Armond "Si" Simmons

Pell City, AL 35128104 Wadsworth Lane 205 338 7378

psysim@coosahs.net