Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll.

The sentiment that the First Amendment goes too far was already on the rise before the terrorist attacks a year ago, doubling to four in 10 between 2000 and 2001.

The poll released Thursday found that 49 percent think the First Amendment goes too far, a total about 10 points higher than in 2001.

CNET NEWS.COM - Google inaccessible in China.

China appears to have blocked leading search engine Google, sparking speculation of a crackdown on Internet content viewed as subversive ahead of a Communist Party congress in November.

The U.S.-based Web site, which has become popular among Internet surfers in China because of its simplicity and ability to run thorough Chinese-language Web searches, was inaccessible via Chinese servers as early as Saturday, users said.

"It's being blocked out of Beijing," said one industry insider, who follows China's regulation of the Internet closely and used his computer to confirm and pinpoint the block.

New York Times - Editorial Op-Ed: By Bob Herbert free registration required Secrecy Is Our Enemy.

Judge Keith wrote an opinion, handed down last Monday by a three-judge panel in Cincinnati, that clarified and reaffirmed some crucially important democratic principles that have been in danger of being discarded since the terrorist attacks last Sept. 11.

The opinion was a reflection of true patriotism, a 21st-century echo of a pair of comments made by John Adams nearly two centuries ago. "Liberty," said Adams, "cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."

And in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1816, Adams said, "Power must never be trusted without a check."

Last Monday's opinion declared that it was unlawful for the Bush administration to conduct deportation hearings in secret whenever the government asserted that the people involved might be linked to terrorism.

The Justice Department has conducted hundreds of such hearings, out of sight of the press and the public. In some instances the fact that the hearings were being held was kept secret.

The administration argued that opening up the hearings would compromise its fight against terrorism. Judge Keith, and the two concurring judges in the unanimous ruling, took the position that excessive secrecy compromised the very principles of free and open government that the fight against terror is meant to protect.

The opinion was forceful and frequently eloquent.

"Democracies die behind closed doors," wrote Judge Keith.

He said the First Amendment and a free press protect the "people's right to know" that their government is acting fairly and lawfully. "When government begins closing doors," he said, "it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation."

He said, "A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution."

The concurring judges were Martha Craig Daughtrey and James G. Carr. The panel acknowledged -- and said it even shared -- "the government's fear that dangerous information might be disclosed in some of these hearings." But the judges said when that possibility arises, the proper procedure for the government would be to explain "on a case-by-case basis" why the hearing should be closed.

"Using this stricter standard," wrote Judge Keith, "does not mean that information helpful to terrorists will be disclosed, only that the government must be more targeted and precise in its approach."

A blanket policy of secrecy, the court said, is unconstitutional.

Slashdot | Your Rights Online - Google Disappears In China.

An anonymous reader submits: "The censorship in China was finally getting better since people were 'allowed' to read the CNN news now (except for certain articles). But since this weekend it seems that a new web page has been censored in China. Since this weekend it looks like everyone in China is not 'allowed' to use google.com anymore. google.com was also gaining populairity in China as the better search engine (which also works fine in Chinese). But now I guess it got too popular and thus not allowed. Or does it have anything to do with Yahoo signing the agreement to censor?" --- Comments to yesterday's post "Real-Time Testing of China's Internet Filters" also noted that Google has gone missing within China.

New York Times - free registration required South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements.

South Carolina's 10 active federal trial judges have unanimously voted to ban secret legal settlements, saying such agreements have made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous products, inept doctors and sexually abusive priests.

"Here is a rare opportunity for our court to do the right thing," Chief Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. of United States District Court wrote to his colleagues, "and take the lead nationally in a time when the Arthur Andersen/Enron/Catholic priest controversies are undermining public confidence in our institutions and causing a growing suspicion of things that are kept secret by public bodies."

If the court formally adopts the rule, after a public comment period that ends Sept. 30, it will be the strictest ban on secrecy in settlements in the federal courts. Mary Squiers, who tracks individual federal courts' rules for the United States Judicial Conference, said only Michigan had a similar rule, which unseals secret settlements after two years. The conference is the administrative body for federal courts.

[ ... ]

Several states have laws and rules that limit secret settlements, typically in cases involving public safety. Florida, for instance, forbids court orders that have the effect of "concealing a public hazard."

Experts say many of those limits are difficult to enforce, particularly when every party to a case is urging the judge to approve a settlement. Indeed, Judge Anderson's colleagues rejected his proposal, which was limited to matters of public health and safety, in favor of a blanket ban.