U.S. Gov muzzles dissent

Sindawe · Dec 13, 2004

By Scott Martelle | Associated Press
December 7, 2004

In the summer of 1956, Russian poet Boris Pasternak -- a favorite of the recently deceased Joseph Stalin -- delivered his epic "Doctor Zhivago" manuscript to a Soviet publishing house, hoping for a warm reception and a fast track to readers who had shared Russia's torturous half-century of revolution and war, oppression and terror.

Instead, Pasternak received one of the all-time classic rejection letters: A 10,000-word missive that stopped just short of accusing him of treason. It was left to foreign publishers to give his smuggled manuscript life, offering the West a peek into the soul of the Cold War enemy, winning Pasternak the 1958 Nobel in literature and providing Hollywood with an epic film.

These days, Pasternak might not have fared so well.

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.

Conitinued at : http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/7652.html

--------

OK, check me folks, does this not sound like a violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

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.

another okie · Dec 13, 2004

I don't think we're getting the whole story. There is a complicated background to this. We have laws and regulations barring trade with certain hostile countries. In the past we have made exceptions for dissident writers in those countries. It sounds like the .gov has decided to end that exception, without really thinking through what that meant.

If so, it has more to do with profits and capture of the assets of nationals of hostile foreign countries than repression of speech. If it's just a flat prohibition, yes, that would certainly violate the First. If it's some sort of profits capture, that would not necessarily violate the First.

It could be an attack on freedom, or it could be just some stupid bureaucrat's failure to think through a minor change in a very complicated regulation. Based on my experience with the feds, stupidly is more likely than conspiracy. Let's wait for an explanation before storming the Bastille.

Standing Wolf · Dec 13, 2004

Let's wait for an explanation before storming the Bastille.

I'm not going to France even if we don't get an explanation.

White Horseradish · Dec 13, 2004

I don't think we're getting the whole story. There is a complicated background to this. We have laws and regulations barring trade with certain hostile countries. In the past we have made exceptions for dissident writers in those countries. It sounds like the .gov has decided to end that exception, without really thinking through what that meant.

If so, it has more to do with profits and capture of the assets of nationals of hostile foreign countries than repression of speech. If it's just a flat prohibition, yes, that would certainly violate the First. If it's some sort of profits capture, that would not necessarily violate the First.

It could be an attack on freedom, or it could be just some stupid bureaucrat's failure to think through a minor change in a very complicated regulation. Based on my experience with the feds, stupidly is more likely than conspiracy. Let's wait for an explanation before storming the Bastille.

This requires a license to publish. It's that whatif that has been thrown about here quite often. It does not matter what this has to do with, fees, trade, whatever. It is the government saying that you need their permission to publish a book. That is all we need to know. The information is in.

Unless, of course, you want to wait until they get to burning books already published.

why_me · Dec 14, 2004

This may be the last president

we ever have. We are about one terrorist attack away from martial law. Read the whole article it is very interesting.

Michigander · Dec 14, 2004

Officials from the U.S. Treasury Department, which oversees OFAC, declined comment on the lawsuit, but spokeswoman Molly Millerwise described the sanctions as "a very important part of our overall national security."

"It's for National Security!"

That's has gotten very old really fast. Almost as bad as, "It's for the children!"

Are these people in the Treasury Department Bush appointees?

MacViolinist · Dec 14, 2004

It's always really bizarre to me when I hear people say "Wait a minute, we don't know why this is happening." It's as if there must be a conspiracy to limit freedom in order for freedoms to be limited. Somehow it would be ok for the first amendment to lose some of its meaning if it was just a beaurocratic slip-up? That just doesn't make sense to me.

spartacus2002 · Dec 14, 2004

Never assume a conspiracy when incompetence is just as likely.

cloudkiller · Dec 14, 2004

I agree there may be more to the story but...

This administration has already put a gag order on healthcare professionals as well. Before US medical professionals can speak with international agencies/healthcare groups about public health issues they have to get "clearance" from the US government. This is specifically because of discussions on birth control and abortion but ties into the whole issue of gov't censorship well.

DonP · Dec 14, 2004

I'm not building the bunker just yet

Before we all start declaring the end of the 1st amendment, would anyone like to see the collection of letters I have from my Dad and Uncles in WW II? They are cut up like confetti with missing words, sentences and whole paragraphs. All neatly razor bladed out by the military and civilian censors. The same held true for newspapers and radio broadcasters.

"Before US medical professionals can speak with international agencies/healthcare groups about public health issues they have to get "clearance" from the US government. "

That doesn't sound like an totally strange request to me, under the current circumstances.

It ain't hard to se a situation that could go like this ...

Dr. Knownothing from the U of Cal at Berkeley says to his international colleagues at a symposium in Geneva Switzerland ...

"For quality control over 90% of the US smallpox vaccine is made using eggs as the culture medium that are produced at only three farms in the state of California." ... or some such.

"Very interesting Doctor, says Dr. Ibn Ben Badguy from the Peoples Islamic Republic of Iran, tell me more about these farms and your wonderful country."

I know it seems like a stretch, but people not involved in security have spilled more information inadvertantly than we will ever know. Having the information screened before they meet or speak, might be a simple preventative measure.

Just my .02 ont he matter.

Sindawe · Dec 14, 2004

Before we all start declaring the end of the 1st amendment, would anyone like to see the collection of letters I have from my Dad and Uncles in WW II? They are cut up like confetti with missing words, sentences and whole paragraphs. All neatly razor bladed out by the military and civilian censors. The same held true for newspapers and radio broadcasters.

The difference between then and now is that then, the U.S. was in a formal state of war with Axis Powers. Such is not the case today, unless you, me and the rest of the country missed the declaration of war issues by congress.

Having the information screened before they meet or speak, might be a simple preventative measure

Have you submited your post to National Security screening? The Internet is available to all the world, can't have someone spilling secrets to the bad guys ya know.

White Horseradish · Dec 14, 2004

Before we all start declaring the end of the 1st amendment, would anyone like to see the collection of letters I have from my Dad and Uncles in WW II? They are cut up like confetti with missing words, sentences and whole paragraphs. All neatly razor bladed out by the military and civilian censors.

Apples and oranges. There is no freedom of speech in the Army and never was. This here is about getting a license to publish.

Headless Thompson Gunner · Dec 14, 2004

Has anyone been prevented from publishing something under this law? Or is it just the hypothetical possibility that someone might be prevented in the future?

griz · Dec 14, 2004

Never assume a conspiracy when incompetence is just as likely.

I agree with that, but does it matter if the 1st amendment is intentionally or accidently trashed?

Has anyone been prevented from publishing something under this law? Or is it just the hypothetical possibility that someone might be prevented in the future?

That's about like saying that gun prohibition is OK as long as they don't take yours.

Sindawe · Dec 14, 2004

Has anyone been prevented from publishing something under this law? Or is it just the hypothetical possibility that someone might be prevented in the future?

From the linked article:

Violations carry severe reprisals -- publishing houses can be fined $1 million and individual violators face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

This sounds like a pretty clear threat against both puplishing houses AND individuals for exercising their 1st Amendment liberties. Most people tend to avoid doing things that they can be severly punished for doing. From the linked article:

"These are countries that pose serious threats to the United States, to our economy and security and our well being around the globe," Millerwise said, adding that publishers can still bring dissident writers to American readers as long as they first apply for a license.
"The licensing is a very important part of the sanctions policy because it allows people to engage with these countries," Millerwise said. "Anyone is free to apply to OFAC for a license."

A "license" to excersise protected liberties. :scrutiny:

Michigander · Dec 14, 2004

I know it seems like a stretch, but people not involved in security have spilled more information inadvertantly than we will ever know.

And people involved in security have spilled, sold, traded, more information (and more critical information at that) than we will ever know.

Having the information screened before they meet or speak, might be a simple preventative measure.

And making firearms illegal is a simple preventative measure too. :scrutiny:

Art Eatman · Dec 14, 2004

I read the article in its entirety, and the spokeswoman's comments sound to me like a fairly typical case of bureaucratic terminal stoopidididity. Gung ho about security, with no notion of what she's talking about.

What's heartening is the list of groups who are lining up to go to court over it.

Ya get to the nitty-gritty, and it strikes me that our Wondrous Gummint would actively want a dissident from a Bad Guy country to be published.

Art

RevDisk · Dec 14, 2004

Dr. Knownothing from the U of Cal at Berkeley says to his international colleagues at a symposium in Geneva Switzerland ...

"For quality control over 90% of the US smallpox vaccine is made using eggs as the culture medium that are produced at only three farms in the state of California." ... or some such.

"Very interesting Doctor, says Dr. Ibn Ben Badguy from the Peoples Islamic Republic of Iran, tell me more about these farms and your wonderful country."

There is only one manufacturing facility in the US for the flu vaccine, Aventis in Pennsylvania. The common flu has probably killed more people than all wars combined. Believe me, the reality of how fragile our health industry is worse than any Dr Badguy from some foreign country.

(Apparently Dr Badguy and his henchmen have not invested in something called the Internet. Vaccine Production Relies on Quaint System )

Our current supply of botulinum toxin (caused by botulism) anti-toxins come from a single horse. In 1990, US Army vets shot up a horse named First Flight with lots of botulinum toxin and eventually First Flight naturally started cranking out antitoxin. Our entire bioweapon defense against botulism is a single old horse. Object at Hand

Censorship rarely actually works. Especially now that the Internet is around. Anything a doc could say at a speech can usually be found on the Internet in more detain. You want copies of our current latest chemical warfare defense research? I got them bookmarked. Think other countries don't troll the 'net for research, or develop their own?

Censorship is mainly designed to be used against one's own citizens. It rarely deters any enemy intelligence service.

Bog · Dec 14, 2004

License... to publish?

I beg your pardon?

License... let me get this straight... license. To publish. The printed. Word?

I'm... I'm trying to get a lock. I am. I swear. The recticle is right there, it's floating, it's yellow, it's blinking, but it's not turning red.

License to publish... in America?

WHAT??????

Hkmp5sd · Dec 14, 2004

Can anyone dissent more than the John Kerry/DNC campaign we just suffered through? This strikes me more as a muzzle on business instead of dissent. For one thing, in the world today, nothing can be muzzled. There is no way to stop the flow of information, so why bother. Secondly, it does not restrict the works of only dissident writers, but of all writers in those countries.

Why do publishers print books? Money. Why do authors write books? Money. If there are trade sanctions against a country, why should this commerce be exempt? Before someone jumps on authors/publisher making books merely to spread information and money is not important bandwagon, then let the authors/publishers don their halo and wings and distribute the information for free on the internet.

This is no different than banning Cuban cigars. It is a product that is restricted due to sanctions against countries.

spartacus2002 · Dec 14, 2004

Ah, that's right, the internet. Because everyone in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran has free, unfettered Internet access, I suppose.

Michigander · Dec 14, 2004

This is no different than banning Cuban cigars. It is a product that is restricted due to sanctions against countries.

I seriously beg to differ.

How can a box of cigars compare to multitudes of ideas, thoughts, opinions, facts, figures, news, information, etc.?

Might it be that the Media Giants are so well contained that this is an attempt to contain other sources outside the Media Giants? :scrutiny:

ReadyontheRight · Dec 14, 2004

What's heartening is the list of groups who are lining up to go to court over it.

What Mr. Eatman said.

Some gov. official got all gung-ho about stopping U.S. companies from doing business with countries against whom the U.S. has trading sanctions. This business happens to be the printed word. You've got to admit that it's somewhat of a grey area when the author is not an American citizen.

The checks and balances will fix this. If they don't, we'll all howl and howl and lawyers will make bucketfuls of money (much of it reimbursed by our taxes).

Would this STORY have seen the light of day if dissent were truly being muzzled?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36 · Dec 15, 2004

I'd rather that the profits from books such as "Cooking with Osama" not flow too freely back to his hidey hole in Dogcrapistan.

Printing of their works is protected, sending them a royalty check is not and the US Govt. is well within the scope of its authority to prevent such.

As an aside, non-citizens living outside the US have no rights under the US Constitution, except in some extremely narrow circumstances such as being party to a suit against the US, or POW-Enemy Combatant status.

Hkmp5sd · Dec 15, 2004

Ah, that's right, the internet. Because everyone in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran has free, unfettered Internet access, I suppose.

And I'm sure that if Simon & Schuster prints a book in the United States, every corner Barnes & Noble in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran will have a copy.

How can a box of cigars compare to multitudes of ideas, thoughts, opinions, facts, figures, news, information, etc.?

They compare in that profits from the sale of both in the United States provides money for governments that have sanctions in place against them. If it is merely "multitudes of ideas, thoughts, opinions, facts, figures, news, information," then put the info on a Blog.

U.S. Gov muzzles dissent

Member

Member

Member in memoriam

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator In Memoriam

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Similar threads