Thought the Patriot Act was bad? Just wait until the Bushies get ahold of the Persian poets on your bookshelf.
Writers often grumble about the criminal things editors do to their prose. The federal government has recently weighed in on the same issue — literally.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.
Anyone who publishes material from a country under a trade embargo is forbidden to reorder paragraphs or sentences, correct syntax or grammar, or replace "inappropriate words," according to several advisory letters from the Treasury Department in recent months.
[...]
Laws and regulations prohibiting trade with various nations have been enforced for decades, generally applied to items like oil, wheat, nuclear reactors and, sometimes, tourism. Applying them to grammar, spelling and punctuation is an infuriating interpretation, several people in the publishing industry said.
"It is against the principles of scholarship and freedom of expression, as well as the interests of science, to require publishers to get U.S. government permission to publish the works of scholars and researchers who happen to live in countries with oppressive regimes," said Eric A. Swanson, a senior vice president at John Wiley & Sons, which publishes scientific, technical and medical books and journals.
[...]
Esther Allen, chairwoman of the PEN American Center's translation committee, said the rules would also appear to ban translations. "During the cold war, the idea was to let voices from behind the Iron Curtain be heard," she said. "Now that's called trading with the enemy?" (from the New York Times)
Now this, this is just plain wrong, as well as dumb. Editing books from foreign countries is not trading with the enemy, no matter how much the Bushies seem to think that it is.
Posted by: Zog on March 2, 2004 11:44 AMIf anyone thinks voting against Bush is going to magically wipe away censorship, then they are sorely mistaken.The historical record shows that John Kerry and other Democrats should be expected to practice censorship at multiple levels.Democrats are far more prone to play the censorship card because they like to broaden their “crossover appeal” among voters.They are willing to sell out the First Amendment at the drop of a hat for a few votes. Congressional Democrats probably figure that a substantial amount of people who oppose censorship are not going to vote Republican anyway, so what is there to lose?A prime example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill included the “Communications Decency Act” sponsored by Democrat Jim Exon of Nebraska. Just look at how many Democrat Senators were chomping at the bit to vote for this and get their names on it as sponsors of amendments!The Republican-appointed Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU, that the federal Communications Decency Act, as signed by Bill Clinton, was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, affirming a lower court decision. Yes, these are the same Supreme Court Justices that serve through present day.
Here you can see how the Democrats clamored to pass this bill:
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652)
S.AMDT.1269Amendment sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of CaliforniaPurpose: To provide for the full scrambling on multichannel video services of sexually explicit adult programming.
Senator John Kerry Voted Yes.
S.AMDT.1275
Amendment sponsored by Kent Conrad, Democrat of North DakotaPurpose: To provide means of limiting the exposure of children to violent programming on television, and for other purposes (V-Chip).
Senator John Kerry voted against a motion to table this amendment.
Conrad Amendment passed as modified by the Lieberman Amendment on a voice vote of the Senate.
S.AMDT.1347
Amendment to Conrad Amendment sponsored by Joe Lieberman, Democrat of ConnecticutPurpose: To revise the provisions relating to the establishment of a system for rating violence and other objectionable content on television.Lieberman Amendment to the Conrad Amendment passed on a voice vote of the Senate.
S.AMDT.1288Amendment sponsored by Patrick Leahy, Democrat of VermontPurpose: To revise title IV of the bill and provide for a study of the legal and technical means of restricting access to obscenity on interactive telecommunications systems.Leahy Amendment passed as modified by the Exon Amendment (Communications Decency Act) on a voice vote of the Senate.S.AMDT.1362Communications Decency ActAmendment to Leahy Amendment sponsored by James Exon, Democrat of Nebraska Purpose: To provide protections against harassment, obscenity and indecency to minors by means of telecommunications devices. Senator John Kerry voted yes. Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652) passed Senate with amendments.Senator John Kerry voted yes. Senate agreed to conference report for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652)Senator John Kerry voted yes. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (S. 652), which includes the Communications Decency Act was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996.Again, the Republican-appointed Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU, that the federal Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Posted by: highway1pch on June 1, 2004 05:39 PM
