order [PDF] that the stories were based on privileged attorney-client information, which was leaked to the newspapers, and that publication of any portion of it would cause "irreparable harm" to the BPU.

The Kansas City Star and The Pitch, a local news weekly, both reported about the forced removal of the material and their intention to appeal the rare judicial decision to censor their reporting. A story was also run about the matter by AP.

At the end of this article The BRAD BLOG will run the Kansas City Star's short article in full since it has been ordered removed --- foolishly in our opinion, particularly in the Internet age when such stories are instantly archived, as was this one, by Google's cache engine --- and appears clearly to be in the best interest of the public and their right to know about how their public utilities are being run.

The Star's dangerous version of the story alleges that, according to a confidential "liability analysis" prepared by an attorney for the BPU and then leaked to the papers, "At least 15 projects and upgrades at power plants operated by the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan., may have violated federal clean air laws."

According to The Star, the document (which we haven't seen, so we cannot corroborate their reporting) "layed out the odds for the BPU of the risks of penalties by the Environmental Protection Agency. It examined 73 projects that may not have followed regulations."

"Of those," reported the now-censored paper, "15 were 'probably not defensible' and another 15 were 'questionable.'"

The BRAD BLOG still strongly believes in the First Amendment, despite the continuing assault upon it over the last several years. We've seen a similar case to the BPU matter, in that of Stephen Heller, the courageous whistleblower who we covered here extensively, after he leaked attorney-client privileged documents which revealed wrongdoing by the voting machine company Diebold, Inc. Heller's act was performed for the greater good and in the public interest. Diebold similarly tried to stop the Oakland Tribune from running those documents, but failed in their attempts to stop publication. Hopefully BPU will eventually fail as well.

According to The Star's coverage of the censorship, the newspaper's editor and vice president Mark Zieman said, "To have a published story pulled from our Web site is unprecedented and unbelievable." We concur.

Further, the paper reports:

Cases of prior restraint — in which the government tries to prevent the publication of information — are extremely rare.

In Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional.

Over the years, the court has repeatedly ruled that courts can try to prevent the dissemination of information only if it presents a "clear and present danger" or a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.

The Pitch reported in their coverage:

“This judge made a serious error. The injunction so clearly violates the First Amendment that we have no choice but to fight for these fundamental principles in the appellate courts,” said Steve Suskin, legal counsel for Village Voice Media, the Pitch’s parent company.

“The ruling doesn’t just threaten the freedom of the press, it hurts the people of Kansas City,” added Pitch editor C.J. Janovy. “They deserve some answers. Moorhouse’s ruling clearly goes against the public interest.”

With all of that in mind, the Google cache version of the original Star story is here.

But should that be taken down as well for some reason, we've posted the story in full below, feel free to copy it, paste it, and share it with your friends --- those still in favor of the Constitution and the freedom of the press, in any case...

Originally published by The Kansas City Star on Friday, March 2, 2007 at this URL. The following version was copied from Google's cache at this URL.

BPU document details possible clean-air violations

At least 15 projects and upgrades at power plants operated by the Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kan., may have violated federal clean air laws, according to a confidential BPU document.

The document, obtained from an anonymous source by The Kansas City Star, was prepared in 2004 by an attorney to lay out the odds for the BPU of the risks of penalties by the Environmental Protection Agency. It examined 73 projects that may not have followed regulations.

Of those, 15 were “probably not defensible” and another 15 were “questionable,” it said.

The document, which calls itself a “liability analysis,” says that the utility could be subject to thousands of dollars in fines. It also says the BPU has the choice of approaching the EPA to reach a settlement or waiting for the EPA to initiate action.

It is unclear which course the BPU took.

EPA and Kansas Department of Health and Environment officials said they did not know anything about possible violations. BPU officials could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.