Getty Images Fourth Estate Since When Does Loretta Lynch Get to Censor What I Read?

Jack Shafer is Politico’s senior media writer.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch thinks we’re such fragile butterflies she tried to shield us from the full-throated political declarations of Orlando killer Omar Mateen.

Earlier today, at Lynch’s instruction, the FBI released a partial transcript of the 28 minutes of 911 calls that the multitasking Mateen managed to place from Orlando’s Pulse nightclub even as he was performing the deadliest single-shooter massacre in U.S. history. Conspicuously redacted was the name of the organization to which Mateen had pledged himself and its leader. From the transcript:


Mateen: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].

Lynch’s exercise in censorship drew immediate ridicule from Florida Gov. Rick Scott, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and others. “Selectively editing this transcript is preposterous. We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS,” Ryan said in a Twitter statement. “The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why.”

By mid-afternoon, Lynch’s Justice Department and the FBI had caved to the pressure and un-redacted the transcripts, saying the deletions had “caused unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime.”

Hold on just a minute! The nation’s top cop of all people should have been able to predict a hell storm of bad publicity and partisan rock throwing after she bowdlerized a terrorist’s mundane declaration of evil. What Lynch and the FBI did was inexcusable, and she shouldn’t have been surprised.

Speaking on Meet the Press yesterday, Lynch offered Chuck Todd the flimsiest of explanations for why the FBI deleted the name of the leader (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and the organization (Islamic State) from the transcript in the first place, especially seeing as the FBI had previously shared this information with the press.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch had said. Apparently Lynch has never worked as an actual (rather than virtual) babysitter, else she’d know that censoring a text triggers only a wider and deeper dig for the facts.

But more important, when and how did Lynch acquire a duty to protect the public from what she considers “propaganda”? What business is it of hers or the Justice Department’s what political thoughts my ears are exposed to? And where exactly will her powers stop? Magazines and Web sites that espouse jihad exist already. What would we say if Lynch attempted to ban or edit those, too?

Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union the same day, Lynch added another justification for bowdlerizing Mateen. “The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts,” Lynch said, “is to avoid re-victimizing those people that went through this horror.”

This, too, is ridiculous. No law or American tradition directs the federal government to withhold public information to protect the psyches of “survivors.” In fact, the general rule is the opposite: The most brutal evidence imaginable is exhibited routinely to the public in murder and assault trials. Had Mateen survived and been brought to trial, the unexpurgated 911 calls most likely would have been admitted as evidence and made available for all the world to see. The mere fact that Mateen is unavailable for such a proceeding does not mean his crime file may be sanitized.

At an Orlando press conference today, FBI agent Ronald Hopper reiterated Lynch’s talking points, saying the bureau was “not going to propagate violent rhetoric” by releasing full transcripts. “The audio was compelling, but to expose that now would be excruciatingly painful to exploit [the killed and wounded] in this way.”

The irony is that, even while the Justice Department was still refusing to release the full version of the 911 calls, Lynch had looked like Julian Assange compared to the City of Orlando. Orlando has categorically denied the requests by media organizations to release the 911 calls. Despite Florida “sunshine” statutes that compel the release of public documents, Orlando has argued that audio or video recordings depicting the killing of a person are exempt and may therefore be kept confidential under Florida law. But even so, the media companies’ lawyers insist, there is no reason to withhold portions of the calls during which no killing took place.

“It’s a dark day for the Sunshine State when the federal government is more forthcoming with public records than are state agencies,” said lawyer Rachel E. Fugate of the firm Thomas & LoCicero, which is representing the media consortium.

For all of her talk about protecting “victims,” Lynch’s ultimate motive for withholding portions of the tapes was likely the Obama administration’s interest in downplaying Mateen’s (admittedly wispy) connection to ISIS, which candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans are eager to demagogue. Was Orlando a terror attack inspired by religious fanaticism or the realization of a young man’s bent fantasy to commit violence? Clearly it was a bit of both. But neither side of this debate is well-served by withholding a complete account of what Mateen said that bloody night.

******

Ignorance is bliss! Send your Orwellian prescription via email to [email protected]. My email alerts suppress my Twitter feed and blot out my RSS feed.