A new report from the PEN American Center, the world’s leading literary and human rights organization, found that in the wake of the NSA surveillance practice revelations, American journalists and writers have begun to censor themselves for fear they will be subjected to further government scrutiny.
The report, “Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor,” which was conducted with the help of researchers from the FDR Group, surveyed more than 520 different American writers — all of whom are PEN members — in October 2013, to determine how news of the U.S. government’s surveillance programs had affected American writers’ thinking, research, and writing.
Initial survey results found that American writers were significantly more likely than the general public to disapprove of “the government’s collection of telephone and Internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts,” with 66 percent of writers disapproving vs. 44 percent of the general public.
According to the survey, only 12 percent of writers approve of the surveillance practices compared to 50 percent of the general public.
Although writers, specifically journalists, have arguably been more concerned about the freedom of the press than the general public, PEN’s report found that 73 percent of the writers surveyed reported they had never been more worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today.
As one writer commented, “[D]uring the Nixon years, I took it for granted that the administration had an eye on me, and if it didn’t, I wasn’t doing my job. For a political cartoonist, active early on against Vietnam, one expected tax audits and phone taps. Irritating, but not intimidating. In fact, just the opposite: I was inspired. I view the current situation as far more serious, and the culpability and defensiveness of the president and his people deeply and cynically disturbing.”
Creativity stifled as self-censorship takes over
The report’s findings reaffirm PEN’s long-held stance that when freedom of expression and creativity is threatened, freedom of information is imperiled as well.
PEN argued in the report that the results of the survey proved there is reason to further investigate the harm of surveillance, especially since researchers found that writers were not only overwhelmingly worried about government surveillance, but were censoring their work as a result.
“The codification of surveillance as a new ‘norm’—with all different forms and layers—is changing the world in ways I think I fail to grasp still,” one writer said. “And one of the things I’ve learned through repeat visits to another country with a strong police/military presence is what it feels like to not know whether or exactly how you are being watched due to some categorization you might not even know about.
“This is of great concern to me, the sense that this condition is spreading so rapidly in different nations now—or perhaps more accurately: that the foundations are being laid and reinforced so that by the time we fully realize that we live in this condition, it will be too late to alter the infrastructure patterns.”
According to the report, writers are self-censoring their work and their online activity due to fears that commenting on, researching, or writing about certain issues will cause them harm. Writers reported self-censoring on subjects such as military affairs, the Middle East, the North Africa region, mass incarceration, drug policies, pornography, the Occupy movement, and criticism of the U.S. government.
“As a writer and journalist who deals with the Middle East and the Iraq War in particular, I suspect I am being monitored,” one writer said, adding that “As a writer who has exposed sexual violence in the military, and who speaks widely on the subject, likewise.”
Of the writers surveyed, one in six reported they had avoided writing or speaking on a topic they believed may subject them to further government surveillance.
“I was considering researching a book about civil defense preparedness during the Cold War: What were the expectations on the part of Americans and the government? What would have happened if a nuclear conflagration had taken place? What contingency plans did the government have? How did the pall of imminent disaster affect Americans?,” one writer said.
“But as a result of recent articles about the NSA, I decided to put the idea aside because, after all, what would be the perception if I Googled ‘nuclear blast,’ ‘bomb shelters,’ ‘radiation,’ ‘secret plans,’ ‘weaponry,’ and so on? And are librarians required to report requests for materials about fallout and national emergencies and so on? I don’t know.”
Additionally the report found that 16 percent of writers reported they have refrained from conducting certain Internet searches or visiting controversial websites, 13 percent have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and 3 percent have declined to meet with people who may be classified as a security threat by the government.
“I feel that increased government surveillance has had a chilling effect on my research, most of which I do on the Internet. This includes research on issues such as the drug wars and mass incarceration, which people don’t think about as much as they think about foreign terrorism, but is just as pertinent.”
In the report, PEN said that part of what makes self-censorship troubling is the impossibility of knowing precisely what is lost to society because of it — books or articles that go unwritten that could potentially have shaped the world’s thinking on a particular topic.
How can a source be protected?
Although the impending threat of being further scrutinized or surveilled has not prevented all writers from covering certain topics, many writers reported that they are more careful about protecting their sources than they were in the past and are concerned protecting sources may no longer be possible.
Researchers found that 81 percent of writers are very concerned about government efforts to compel journalists to reveal sources of classified information, and another 15 percent are somewhat concerned — which means 96 percent of writers have some level of concern when it comes to protecting sources.
According to PEN, the NSA’s surveillance will damage the ability of the press to report on important contemporary issues if journalists refrain from contacting sources for fear that their sources will be identified and harmed, or if sources conclude that they cannot safely speak to journalists and thus remain silent.
One writer surveyed explained that great care must be taken to protect the content of certain interviews related to civil rights, and even when anonymity isn’t requested, writers proceed with significant caution.
“For example, I have recently interviewed reporters who write about national security and prefer to meet in person rather than talk with me by phone. This makes the work cumbersome and time-consuming. Some also want playbacks of their quotes so they don’t inadvertently identify sources or describe precautions they take to protect them.
“Some of those precautions remind me of my days as Moscow Bureau Chief of [a major news outlet] under communism, when to communicate with dissidents and refuseniks we had to avoid substantive phone conversations, meet in person in public, etc. It’s not a good feeling to have reporters’ work in your own country’s capital resemble ours in Moscow in the bad old days.”
Though PEN reports that the writers concerns about government surveillance is not necessarily surprising, the group says “the impact on the free flow of information should concern us all.
“As writers continue to restrict their research, correspondence, and writing on certain topics, the public pool of knowledge shrinks. What important information and perspectives will we miss? What have we missed already?”