By Lucy Dalglish As we celebrate World Press Freedom Day 2002, the United States is for the first time in decades confronting limits on freedom of the press that we had previously expected only from authoritarian regimes. In the days immediately following September 11, the United States government embarked on a path of secrecy unprecedented in recent years. The atmosphere of terror induced public officials to abandon this country's culture of openness and opt for secrecy as a way of ensuring safety and security. And the media did little to question this threat to civil liberties. For a few weeks after September 11, I was besieged with phone calls from foreign media wanting interviews. Why was the American media swallowing without question everything the government was handing them? Wasn't the American media free and independent? What did I think about the American media being the mouthpiece for George W. Bush? How could American television networks agree to censor Al-Qaeda videotapes just because Condoleeza Rice asked them to? The rest of the world was watching, and chiding the American media for its smug reliance on constitutional principles of a free and independent press. "Where is your First Amendment now?" they asked. There's no doubt there was an "atmosphere" of media inhibition. But I knew it would be only a short time before American journalists returned to their skeptical, challenging selves. But by the time raging skepticism returned about eight weeks later, government had taken actions that made it dramatically more difficult for the media to do its job. And when the media can't do its job, the voting public does not have the information it needs to make decisions in a democracy. The administration of President George W. Bush announced a variety of actions designed to restrict information from reaching the public, including: A directive to agency heads by Attorney General John Ashcroft that changes the interpretation of the federal Freedom of Information Act to allow the agencies to deny access more often to public records if a claim of invasion of privacy or a claim of breech of national security can be alleged. A proposal for secret prosecutions of non-American citizens by military tribunals. Secret imprisonment of more than 1,200 non-American citizens on alleged claims of immigration violations or as material witnesses. Disregard of an 1992 agreement between the media and the Pentagon that provided for pool coverage of military actions. An Executive Order governing the release of Ronald Reagan's White House records that circumvents the Presidential Records Act and illegally limits access to records. Some of these actions, such as the FOIA directive and the Executive Order on presidential papers probably would have happened even without 9/11. Other actions, such as the secrecy imposed on immigration courts, would have been unthinkable before Sept. 11. Somewhere along the line, the Administration and some members of Congress were able to convince themselves and some members of the public that secrecy equals safety. I don't buy it. No one has demonstrated that an ignorant society is a safe society. While some classified information logically should be withheld because it could pose a direct threat to American ground forces or tip off a terrorist that he is under surveillance, citizens are better able to protect themselves and take action when they know the dangers they face. In the months since September 11, calmer heads have begun to prevail. More information is becoming available from government agencies. It appears that any military tribunals, for example, will be conducted publicly. Some recent military offensives have included media coverage. The National Archives released most of the remaining Reagan papers. In perhaps the most stinging rebuke to the Bush Administration, courts in two states that have looked at the issue have found that secret detainment of aliens is illegal. Perhaps most importantly, American citizens seem less frightened and more determined to maintain the rights and liberties they have worked so hard to achieve. They have started to object to the secret imprisonment of witnesses and immigrants. They are asking hard questions about airline security. They want to know whether Afghan civilians have been killed by American air attacks. And they want the world's press to tell them about it. -- Lucy Dalglish is executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, based in Arlington, Va.