The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Foreign dissidents facing U.S. hurdles to publishing
In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American companies from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction unless they first obtain U.S. government approval.
The restriction, condemned by critics as a violation of the First Amendment, means that books and other works banned by some totalitarian regimes cannot be published freely in the United States.
Way to export our values, guys– by not importing other values.
Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has joined the lawsuit, arguing that the rules preclude American publishers from helping craft her memoirs of surviving Iran’s Islamic revolution and her efforts to defend human rights in Iranian courts.
• 
Unbelievable.
Color me not shocked. If you’re not entitled to due process under the constitution (a la tribunals) why would you be entitled to free speech? I’d be angry if it wasn’t so sad. I don’t want to win any battles that have to be fought that way – I’d rather be killed by the monster than have to become one in fighting it.
What genius thought this up?
This is REALLY stupid interpretation of the regulations…to think of something that stupid would take a lifelong government bureaucrat. Bet it’s some schleb who thought they were sucking up to the powers that be…..
Sad, depressing and sickening.
Wake up America. Before it’s too late.
It looks more like bureaucratic bungling at the Treasury Department in applying trade sanctions on specific regimes (Iran, North Korea, Cuba) and not considering the First Amendment implications. I would expect the Treasury Department to reverse themselves fairly quickly on this.
Ted S. I disagree about the Treasury Department admitting it made a mistake. This current administration refuses to admit it makes specific errors, for the most part.
That’s just not cool, I don’t know what else to say.
People refuse to see the writing on the wall until it’s too late…
This is hideous. The one thing I always defended my country for was that it above all others would allow freedom of speech and values to flourish within, even when it was denied in other lands. And trust in its own strengths and courage to incorporate that into America.
Heartbroken. That’s the only word for me.
So let me get this straight.
Certain nations practice censorship and other oppressive human rights violations which we oppose, so we impose sanctions on them as a means of expressing our displeasure.
Dissident writers within these nations risk their freedom, and in some cases their lives, by exercising their god-given right to catalogue and protest the crimes of their government.
We, the United States of America, a nation that, out of all the natural rights we possess by the simple fact of our existence, placed above all others in the central document of our society the right to free expression, allow the works of these writers to be published…
…as long as they don’t say anything we don’t like.
What the f**k?
What the f**k is right. I heard on Al Franken this morning that this could apply to ANY book that is banned in these countries. Like Dr. Zhivago for instance. Morons.
Well that’s just double-stupid. Apparently, we can’t cooperate with other nations when it comes to arms and emissions treaties, or invasions, but we’re more than happy to be a member of the international community when it comes to banning books.
For quite a number of years, the conservatives of this country have been screaming that the Democrats were going to take away the rights of the people. Now that the Republicans have control of the entire government, they are the ones who are limiting rights and trying to take them all away.
Imagine that.
Anyone have an idea on how to fight back? The only answer that comes to my mind is sending the ACLU a donation. I’d welcome other suggestions as well.
and groups such as Amnesty International and PEN.
Contact your representative in the House and Senator, both current and new one (if you have a new one). Try writing an actual letter, not an e-mail, explaining your objections to this and asking for their help in correcting the problem. Just whining and complaining on an internet message board isn’t going to solve anything.
Wait wait. So if, say, North Korea bans a writer from publishing something, and he leaves and flees to the US and wants to publish what he wrote, he can’t unless he seeks special approval? What the fûçk! Way to alienate people who have no say about the unfortunate political society they were born to!
The outfits pushing this case are listed at:
http://pen.org/corefreedoms/90.html
Democracy is on the march
“Wait wait. So if, say, North Korea bans a writer from publishing something, and he leaves and flees to the US and wants to publish what he wrote, he can’t unless he seeks special approval? What the fûçk! Way to alienate people who have no say about the unfortunate political society they were born to!”
Based on what Glenn posted and what I read in the article, I’d guess that this is not the case. Your hypothetical disident would be able to publish if they were in the U.S. However, if they were publishing from North Korea, they might not be able to get it published in the U.S. even if they managed to smuggle out their work.
That was my interpretation, anyway. Anyone should feel free to correct me if I didn’t read it correctly.
Huhwhat? Did someone repeal ths First Amendment while we weren’t looking? Last time I checked (about 2 minutes ago) the FA stated:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe, MAYBE, someone could argue that the FA doesn’t apply to publications by non-Americans. But as stated, this regulation would apply to US companies.
Anyone else see a big, whopping, resounding, NO coming from the Supreme Court in the future if this regulation is ever enforced?
Honestly, I try not to bash our current government (I have to try really, REALLY hard some days) but this is so far beyond idiotic I don’t know what else to say but…
the sheer, unmitigated HUBRIS or STUPIDITY of this. Either the GOP thinks they have such total control of all aspect of government that they can just disregard the ultimate legal document which all their power flows from, or they lack even a basic 6th grade education that includes the most important elements of our country’s history.
If this is any indication of what the next 4 years are going to be like, start my meds now, please….
And just how many millions voted for this nonsense by supporting the current administration?
This is the type of crap that comes from one party controlling the Executive AND Legislative Branches, and probably soon the Judicial as well…
America was a good experiment while it lasted…
Unfortunately, by the time this makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens will probably be replaced by one of Bush’s puppets. The Supreme Court could consider this to be constitutional.
“America was a good experiment while it lasted…”
That’s the quote of the decade
The AP is reporting that the Denver Post has been barred from a military post due to an article that reported unfavorably about soldiers being forced out of the military due to injuries and trauma. This Government is anti freedom.
I’m just curious to see whther anyone will defend this idocy.
I’m just curious to see whther anyone will defend this idocy.
Ooooh, a challenge!
Good move! Probably should done it years ago. Might have less terrorist organizations out there now like MoveOn.Org and Hamas.
Big Brother is reading
I’m posting this just like Peter David had it on his blog. Then I’m gonna bury my head in the…
“Good move! Probably should done it years ago. Might have less terrorist organizations out there now like MoveOn.Org and Hamas.”
What it the point of posting such a blantantly inflamitory statement? It’s only purpose could be to start yet another partisan arguement. Isn’t there something worthwhile you could be doing with your time?
Nope.
And despite the fact that it was obviously an inflammatory statement, I really DON’T have a problem with what the OFAC did. It’s only against certain countries with which we have sanctions anyway, which was the reason they gave for issuing the policy change, and no one says that they can’t publish, just that they have to apply for a license first. Third, it is just a policy change, not a law. My guess is that any lawsuit will be heard but dismissed.
I know the critics are crying foul and violation of first amendment, but I don’t see this as being any more restrictive than asking gun owners, fisherman, or car drivers to get a license. If it is, please explain why. I’d love to hear it.
Eclark –
Where does the First Amendment say that a license may be required before a book may be published?
Having to obtain a license means you need the government’s permission to publish, which is contrary to the First Amendment & the freedom this country is supposed to stand for.
This seems to me a pretty clear case of prior restraint (look the term up). There are some pretty stringent requirements the government has to meet in order to engage in prior restraint…and I simply don’t see them applying here. For example, what compelling interest is there for the government to interefere in the “free and open marketplace of ideas.”? Any government restriction MUST deal with the concept of the marketplace of ideas, and the government’s compelling interest in restricting it. A restriction of a dissident voice of an interdicted country published by an American country simply does not meet this stringent standard.
This differs markedly from gun licensing, where there is a compelling interest for the government to restrict the use of guns from those who cannot use them properly (say, a mentally retarded individual) or a felon.
This is blown out of proportions. They found a loophole to attack the boook: breaching copyrights and trademarks. They didn’t ban it because it was a politcal satire. It’s disgusting and gross, but I wouldn’t go as far as implying that it’s the “direction the country’s going”.
It’s just a stinky burp rather than a milestone in destroying free speech.
Eclark –
Where does the First Amendment say that a license may be required before a book may be published?
Having to obtain a license means you need the government’s permission to publish, which is contrary to the First Amendment & the freedom this country is supposed to stand for.
The second amendment doesn’t say anything about a license either, but a good number people in this forum and the real world (including me, BTW) think it’s a good idea.
This seems to me a pretty clear case of prior restraint (look the term up). There are some pretty stringent requirements the government has to meet in order to engage in prior restraint…and I simply don’t see them applying here. For example, what compelling interest is there for the government to interefere in the “free and open marketplace of ideas.”? Any government restriction MUST deal with the concept of the marketplace of ideas, and the government’s compelling interest in restricting it. A restriction of a dissident voice of an interdicted country published by an American country simply does not meet this stringent standard.
Most likely the OFAC will argue that prior restraint WAS justified. I’m betting that no court will strike it down based on the argument that during a time of war and for national security purposes the United States has the right to inspect information to be deseminated that might compromise military objectives, divulge military secrets, or otherwise endanger the lives of people in sensitive or military missions. Remember that this only applies to certain totalitarian countries that the United States is most likely hostile to, particularly if there are sanctions placed against it.
Prior restraints have and should be used sparingly, but they are not per se unconstitutional. the argument being that “they are such an ‘extraordinary remedy’ that they will only be upheld where the evil that would result from publication can be shown to be both “great and certain,” and cannot be militated by less intrusive measures.”
Do you know of any less intrusive measures other than somebody sitting down and going through the material before its published to determine if some great and certain evil would result from its being published? Because doing so after the fact would be kind of pointless, wouldn’t it?
Nope, no government permission is needed to publish, it’s totally ludicrous and an abuse of power to do otherwise.
Are there no TRUE Americans left?
Apparently not…
Eclark:
“The second amendment doesn’t say anything about a license either”
Please note the first 4 words of the Second Amendment.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
Licensing = regulation
Whereas the First amendment says
“… no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
Licensing = abridging
“The second amendment doesn’t say anything about a license either, but a good number people in this forum and the real world (including me, BTW) think it’s a good idea.”
Yeah, well, a gun is a lethal weapon. A book isn’t.
Michael B.:
Nice try, but regulating a militia is one thing, a private citizen is another. the law does not say you have to be in a militia to have a right that won’t be infringed. It says that not only is it necessary, but in order for a well regulated militia to exist, the people shall not have their guns taken away.
Secondly, we’re not talking about US citizens here, we’re talking about people in other countries. Until those people are in our custody, those rights don’t apply.
Third, the first amendment is not absolute. True, it covers a broad spectrum, but there are limits applied.
Yeah, well, a gun is a lethal weapon. A book isn’t.
A book is information, and like a gun can be used for good or evil. If I had a book where I was publishing your credit card number, your social security number, your telephone number, your bank account number, your home security number, computer password, etc. wouldn’t you want to stop me? Well, if freedom of speech was absolute, you’d have to abridge mine in order to stop me, wouldn’t you? And it’s information like that, “where the evil that would result from publication can be shown to be both “great and certain”, where prior restraint would not apply.
It’s funny, in another thread, I’ve been accused of seeing things only as “right or wrong” or “black and white”, while paying no mind to the “nuances”. Seems to me in this particular case the shoe is on the other foot.
If they were, librarians would rule the world. Ðámņ shame that they don’t
Also, I should point out that this is affecting American citizens. Read http://pen.org/corefreedoms/98.html
“A book is information, and like a gun can be used for good or evil. If I had a book where I was publishing your credit card number, your social security number, your telephone number, your bank account number, your home security number, computer password, etc. wouldn’t you want to stop me?”
To do this, you would have to steal the imformation. Selling stolen goods is not protected by any law, or interpatation thereof, that I’ve ever heard of.
What’s going on here is that that the Government is saying that American companies cannot publish certain materials without the approval & permission of the government. The First Amendment doesn’t allow that.
Now if Clinton, Gore, or Kerry was in office trying to do this, THEN eclark and his buddies would be screaming bloody murder about how unconstitutional this all is…
To do this, you would have to steal the imformation. Selling stolen goods is not protected by any law, or interpatation thereof, that I’ve ever heard of.
Not necessarily. You’d be surprised at how much people could learn about you just from going through your trash, and the law says that once you throw it out its fair game. There is one little technicality that might protect you. A law that pertains to “curtelage”. but that’s more to protect you from the police going through your trash without a warrant than anything else.
What’s going on here is that that the Government is saying that American companies cannot publish certain materials without the approval & permission of the government. The First Amendment doesn’t allow that.
I’ve already pointed out that there’s an exception to the rule. Just because you don’t want to accept it doesn’t make it go away.
Bladestar wrote:
Now if Clinton, Gore, or Kerry was in office trying to do this, THEN eclark and his buddies would be screaming bloody murder about how unconstitutional this all is…
And I bet you’d be quiet, Bladestar. A little wink, wink, nudge nudge, say no more, say no more, what?
Actually, the only reason I’m defending the government on this particular point is on the basis that they might have compelling reason. I’ve listed several reasons why they might. If you can demonstrate that the government has no compelling reason to do this, and none of you have, then I’m against the ruling, too.
Well, I guess more people are more concerned with what “team” they play on rather than right or wrong.
So I guess that makes the democrats…er..uh…the Cleveland Browns?
🙂
“If you can demonstrate that the government has no compelling reason to do this, and none of you have …”
If violating the First Amendment doesn’t do it, I can’t imagine what will.
THe First Amendment makes no exeptions, not even for your pathetically imaginary “National Security” lies…
Try harder clark, you’re failing miserably…
“Actually, the only reason I’m defending the government on this particular point is on the basis that they might have compelling reason.”
I’m sorry, but that’s just crap. If Clinton were in office and the comic being seized were called “Chilly Willy” and depicted Clinton as a horndog penguin, my position would be unchanged while you’d be 180 degrees from where you are now. Absolutely nothing I’ve ever read in anything you’ve written indicates to me that you would ever give Clinton the benefit of the doubt about anything. If there was even the slightest hint that a government agency under the Clinton administration was acting out of line, you’d be on them like a cheap suit.
PAD
you’d be on them like a cheap suit.
What exactly is that supposed to mean anyway? Just because a suit is cheap, I’ve never seen anyone rushing like mad to buy one. That’s a saying that should be tossed completely cuz it makes no sense. Just throw out the baby with the bathwater if you ask me.