Constitution?! We don't need no stinking Constitution!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...otherwise known as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States...

Now, I am a bleeding heart liberal. And as being such I expect a fair amount of bashing from the more conservative sides. It is a healthy difference of opinion. I respect their right to believe differently than I do. With that being said, the Constitution is something that most every American values and believes in. The first 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) are pretty much known by most Americans who took a US History class. The most famous are the 1st and the 5th. Not that the 4th and 6th aren't right up there, it is just that most people who aren't political or law junkies remember statments like: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I many incriminate myself..Senator"...or "I must assert my 5th amendment right not to answer Congressman"....

The 1st Amendment is the one that EVERYONE knows. The freedom to speak, report news, write books(blogs these days too) and practice your religion without fear of persecution or being thrown in a pit of ravenous lions because you called GW a Monkeyboy. With the Patriot Act, that has changed though. Many people will agree that giving up a few liberties to protect the nation from the atrocities that happened on 9/11 occuring again is okay. I tend to disagree. One of the things that made America great was the freedoms which were won by blood and sacrifice by our forefathers and successive generations. I was and still am grateful to those who put themselves in harms way so that my 11 year old self could fall out of a tree and go to school to learn that in the US you can say the government sucks without having to worry about being thrown in a prison for 50 years.

I really am getting to my point. I promise. I was reading today on CNN's website
about how the HHS (Heath and Human Services Department)is seeking to halt the publication of a research paper by a professor and his graduate student from Stanford because they think it is a "roadmap for terrorists" on how to contaminate the nation's milk supply. It is a research paper on biological terrorism on how terrorist might want to poison the moo juice and also on how to better protect it.
"The paper "is a road map for terrorists and publication is not in the interests of the United States," HHS Assistant Secretary Stewart Simonson wrote in a letter to the science academy chief Dr. Bruce Alberts."

Okay..since when does what someone publishes or writes have to be in the "interests" of the United States? I am not advocating for the US milk supply to go all bad and icky here. I am just curious. IF you stop the publication of a scientific work because it could make bad people do bad things, what is next? Do we halt the publication of the comic strip Dilbert (very funny btw) because it may promote dissatisfaction in the work force and lead to lower productivity which then has a negative effect on the US economy thus causing harm to the "interests" of the United States?... Or better yet..No you can't call GW an "insipid moron who's only discernable simian trait is that he has opposable thumbs!"...printing that would not be in the "interests" of the US...although most of the world believes it anyway.
Dealing with scientific openens and still taking into account national security is a very important thing, but where do you draw the line? The paper was submitted to the NAS (National Academy of Sciences), vetted and approved..then the HHS and FDA stepped in and said "oh no no no..you can't publish this." Just so you know, the NAS is actually chartered by Congress to advise the US Government on science and technology stuff (god knows GW doesn't know the difference between a computer and a power saw).

...slippery slope folks....