U.S. Gov muzzles dissent

'Scuse me. Somewhere in all this, somebody's missing the point. Maybe me.

Iran is on the Bad Guy list.

Some Iranian dissident gets out and writes a book. Said book is anti-Iranian Establishment.

Now, it seems to me that dot-gov here would want such a book to be published. It would aid and abet existing US policy.

So, I ask, why would some bureaucrat want to get all excited about the controls over publication of foreign dissidents' works? And, particularly, in the name of "security"?

Somebody's gonna have to work real hard to make me believe that there is any rationality here. Nor do I accept the notion that publishing houses would be against publication. Nor do I see it as simplistic as a comparison with such things as Cuban cigars...

If Michael Moore is free to publish (yeah, movies, I know) his "documentaries", why the uproar over an anti-enemy book?

Art

What I find more concerning is "where does one draw the line". If publishing is something that requires a licence, then surely a cheap inkjet printer and a few reams of plain white A4 is going to be next under scrutiny.

Though I've been accused of being a worry-wart before.

If a dissident gets out of Iran and writes a book, would he no longer be "in" Iran and therefore no longer subject to any .gov restrictions? And as stated, if it is BAD for the country in question, the US would probably print a copy for everyone.

On the other hand, if Osama moves to Iran and wants to publish a Christmas edition coffee table book called 101 Uses for a Severed Westerner's Head, do you want him to make money from its sales in the US?

I think it's for a different reason Art. Our government is friendly, or at least cooperative, with some repressive governments. It may be a political neccessity but it is never the less true. So it is dissidents in that country that worries our not so freedom loving system. The dissident could make us look bad or even potentially leak something that the two gov's want to keep secret.

In no way does that change my mind that the 1st amendment, just like the 2nd, means what it says.

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.

Click to expand...

[SARCASM]Like so many NY Times Bestsellers come out of these countries all the time![/SARCASM]

I'm with Art when he says:

Somebody's gonna have to work real hard to make me believe that there is any rationality here. Nor do I accept the notion that publishing houses would be against publication. Nor do I see it as simplistic as a comparison with such things as Cuban cigars...

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I think the entire concept of economic sanctions is a waste of time. Ten years with Iraq, 20+ years with Iran and 40+ years with Cuba prove the point.

I follow your point, griz, but this particular for-instance concerns Iran--which which we do NOT have friendly relations.

Besides, how does a dissident gain "insider info" as to current "delicate" discussions?

, Art