EDITORIAL SUBJECT

Home \| Feedback \| Contact \| Staff

   We're Back
   Election Primaries
   Turkeyfoot Road
   Expansion
   Junion Journalist

   Sea Exploring
   Health Insurance
   Spotlight on
   Local Heros
   Covington Ladies

   Editorial
   Here & Now
   Birthday
   Annivercies
   Just for Thought
   Timely Reminders
   The Flower Bed
   Vital Signs
   New Branch Library
   Pet Corner
   Rember This
   Opposing Views
   The Lighthouse
   Comics
   Crossword Puzzle

   The Pulpit

   Delivery
   Email
   Policy

   Classifieds

EDITORIAL SUBJECT

Senate Bill 136: Protector of freedom or threat of abuse to the public trust?

How much freedom do we give up to remain free?
In yet another of the many shock waves after the Sept 11 attacks, the Kentucky Senate has sent Senate Bill 136 sent the House by a vote of 24-14. The Bill, introduced by Sen:. Dick Roeding (R), allows for the withholding of records and closed, private meeting. by governing bodies and public agencies.

Senate Bill 136 is intended to create safeguards against the threat of terrorism in areas where security planning is concerned. It is designed to amend the Kentucky law or Open Records and Public Meetings, also referred to as the 'Sunshine Law'.

The Bill has been sent to the House, where it is sure to be the subject of extensive debate. It has been referred to the Kentucky Government Committee.

The 'Sunshine Law' was examined last year by a task force that was created by Gov. Patton. The task force determined that the present law was sufficient to accomplish the security goals for which it was written.

This is a time when people are willing to surrender some privacy and liberties in order. to prevent terrorism and loss of life such as occurred on the horrible day of Sept. 11th. We tolerate numerous airline security measures accept the necessity of safeguards that affect our daily lives... but1 how much secrecy within the government should we allow?

Supporters of Bill 136 say that security is paramount at' the present time, and we must accept this and place our trust in the governing bodies that make up the echelons of our government. Realistically, this feasible, practical or even possible?

Opponents of Bill 136 say that there is plenty enough of secrecy in the government now, without giving official agreement light and an open door to abuse the public's right to know.

How much freedom do we give up in order to be free? At what point will freedom be no more than an ideal that gradually slips away? And ill we do not protect the freedom from our terrorist.. adversaries, how long will we be free anyway? What do you think?