The Bushies are now threatening publishing houses. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html It has warned publishers they may face grave legal consequences for editing manuscripts from Iran and other disfavored nations, on the ground that such tinkering amounts to trading with the enemy. Nahid Mozaffari, a scholar and editor specializing in literature from Iran, called the implications staggering. "A story, a poem, an article on history, archaeology, linguistics, engineering, physics, mathematics, or any other area of knowledge cannot be translated, and even if submitted in English, cannot be edited in the U.S.," she said. "This means that the publication of the PEN Anthology of Contemporary Persian Literature that I have been editing for the last three years," she said, "would constitute aiding and abetting the enemy."
What about Iranian food? I had some koobideh, the other day...looked really suspicious...terrorist-type koobideh...
Latest Update Nobel Winner Ebadi Sues U.S. to Publish Memoirs: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=6706118
Having had NYCLU's Norm Siegel on my ass about a case I was investigating, he, along with the entirety of the CLU movement, can be perfect pains in the ass, but for all the right - and righteous - reasons. I became a member after dealing with him for a three-month period on a case involving a prominent civil rights activists' son's case against the NYPD. Theri very presence got CCRB unfettered access to videos and tapes of the incident we would have had to wait months for. No doubt they are great for opening up the system in terms of functional transparency.
I have to agree Mel. Where would adult men who like to talk about touching little boys be without the ACLU? As for this thread, it's a shame I won't be able to read any poetry from Iran anymore. There goes my Ramadan.
The ACLU would rather be right than popular. Good for them. These decisions have had an effect on some of my coworkers. They had a bit of a tangle trying to publish medical research in an article in which one author was based in Iran. I can understand why we don't allow the trade of oil (unless you work for Halliburton) or goods with Iran, but intellectual material? There are repercussions that are larger than you think, which is, of course, no surprise.
I actually disagree with Bush adm...., er, Neocons on this one. However don't give me that crap about the ACLU being right on the NAMBLA thing. They were also wrong on protecting Limbaugh. The ACLU is wrong on many things. Free speech has it's limits.
So much, almost all, that I valued and respected about my adopted country has been undermined the past few years. The best of America was represented in its constitutional tradition, and foremost in that tradition was the First Amendment. The US is no longer a free country. It is no longer the country that I so confidently told about to skeptics from the country of my birth, some of whom couldn't quite believe that the lofty principles in American constitutional tradition were indeed honored and respected for the powerless even against the powerful. The US has undergone in this short period a massive revolution for the worst. It is becoming a different country, going in the opposite direction from the vision of its founders and the aspirations of the generations that had followed them. Step by step, inch by inch, and then more, those whom have taken the reigns of power in the US have led it marching the opposite of what it claimed to cherish and aspire. What is left are only the slogans dating from a time when the lofty aspirations of America had a genuine meaning. Even those slogans, increasingly sounding hallow and inconvenient, will themselves be one day replaced with new ones. And those new slogans will sound much like the older slogans that America's founders had turned their back on. If America was about a particular religion, or a particular group of people, there were and are many places in the old world which could better represent that religion or that group. What connected America's diverse and different peoples was not their religion or ethnicity. Certainly not a hallow devotion to a geographic entity. America's real religion was the principles underlying its constitutional experience. Its true message was found in those principles. Its true patriots were those who worked to see those principles realized. And its biggest enemies are those who have the greatest power to undermine those very principles. America, Save America. Save it from all who work to see its true essense destroyed, even those who claim to be patriots and yet so misunderstand what America was all about.
Since I don't know the details of the NAMBLA thing to which you guys refer, I can't comment. But I agree with your general point that sometimes the ACLU goes too far. But you know what, that's just fine with me. I don't want them to be moderate - I want them to be radical. It's an advocacy group - it should advocate. Let the system (courts, etc) be the moderating force.
I'm going to echo Barb here, and point out that the ACLU is commited to free speech and civil rights in general. If they don't err on the side of...what they're on the side of, they're not very good at what they do.
This is one of the most ridiculous policies that this Administration has undertaken which harm free expression. Under these regulations, the quixotic result is that works from Iran (and Cuba and Syria) could be published in the United States "as is". But the second that those works are edited in any way, including cleaning up the grammar or spelling errors that might exist, then the US editor is providing a "service to the enemy" in violation of our trade embargo. Never mind that the Administration's interpretation almost certainly runs afoul of the First Amendment, it also technically violates the Berman Amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act which specifically states that informational materials of these types are not covered by that Act. The policy implications, however, are as big a reason to disagree with this regulation. It would affect all sorts of writings, including creative writing, scholarly research in the areas of medicine and other sciences, and news reporting and commentary, which is my main area of interest and where I think a couple of the real problems with these regs exist. For instance, we have trouble getting US reporters inside the hottest areas of Iran, Cuba and Syria, but this would prevent US citizens from getting a very accurate picture of what's going on in those countries as reported by their citizens themselves. Indeed, the Iran situation is particularly acute right now, as the Iranian point of view (such as a commentary from an Iranian paper) of our war with Iraq would come from a very unique point of view -- that of a country which has traditionally been the enemy of both participants in this "war". What's more interesting is that a few months ago, the Washington Post published an excerpt from an April 7, 2004 editorial by the Iran News. The Post published only a part of a commentary from that publication -- editing, if you will, and then publishing. Where did it get this excerpt? From a clipping service run by the United States Department of Commerce that, I guess, would be in violation of the Treasury Department's regulations (these regulations are enforced by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, which is charged with implementing the trade embargoes). Just stupid all around.
Wouldn't it be more cost effective just to throw all that banned literature into a pile and burn it? You could start it up with a few copies of "Catcher in the Rye", so that filth doesn't get spread around either. How are you gonna have a Democratic society if there is a free exchange of ideas. Sheesh.
And after reading the new regs, the really are as good as advertised. I can't believe I'll say it, but reason has finally won out over blind xenophobia in this Administration. I actually put the litigation as only 50 percent of the reason for this change (if that). Mainly, it was due to the resignation of former OFAC director Richard Newcomb and the arrival of a successor who actually recognized the benefits of intercultural exchange of ideas.
A merican C riminal L iberties U nion Their motto: Helping the continual downward spiral to the left....
You mean like when they defended Oliver North? Thank goodness for the ACLU. As a proud card-carrying member, I'd already decided to double my yearly contribution to them. Given the behaviour of the hoodlums in the Bush Regime, I think I need to consider: tripling would probably be more appropriate.
The ACLU wasn't involved on this issue at any time. And frankly, even if they were, I've polled most of my truly hard core Republican friends and none of them could think of a reason that the old regulations served any purpose. Can you or was this just another opportunity to show how great it is to fall lockstep behind the party line because they know what's best for us?