Mediaboss Marketing

The National Security Councils records office, which is coordinating the review, apparently intends to scour the book not just for classified material but for information implicating executive privilege a privilege that Mr. Trump and his lawyers have construed expansively in other contexts though executive privilege is decidedly not a permissible basis for prior restraint. The White House has sent Mr. Bolton a letter expressly warning him against publishing the book.

Of course Mr. Boltons case is unusual, and it is possible that public and congressional pressure will force the White House to review his manuscript promptly and fairly. (Prominent Republicans, for their part, seem to be focused on persuading Mr. Bolton to withdraw his book, or failing that, on limiting the books audience to the senators hearing the impeachment case against Mr. Trump.)

But the spectacle of White House censors deciding, without any real constraint, whether to permit a former government official to publish a manuscript critical of the president should nonetheless provoke alarm.

The necessary changes to this process have been obvious for years: Prepublication review should apply to fewer people and fewer secrets. There should be narrower submission requirements, clearer censorship standards, enforceable deadlines and a meaningful right of judicial review. Mr. Boltons case surely underscores the urgency of these reforms.

Its not just Mr. Boltons rights at issue here. Former government officials often have unique insights about the operation of government. When censors suppress these voices, they inflict a constitutional injury on the public as well. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 2014, Speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment.

Mr. Bolton is an unlikely standard-bearer for the publics right to know, having worked at the highest levels of an administration notorious for its hostility to the First Amendment. But everyone who values an informed public, and an accountable government, should be troubled that the fate of Mr. Boltons book is in the hands of the White House, and that government censors have so much control over what we will read, and when we will read it.

Jameel Jaffer is the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Ramya Krishnan is a staff attorney at the institute.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Originally posted here:
We May Never See John Boltons Book - The New York Times