[LINK] Re: NYTimes... free speech with a twist...edit and be sued..

[Roger Clarke]

It appears to now be necessary for learned journals to arrange their 
publishing processes such that the place of publication is outside 
that increasingly un-free country, the U.S.A.


Marcus Wigan <oxsys at optusnet.com.au> posted to the privacy list:
>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:32:05 +1100
>To: <privacy at lists.efa.org.au>
>From: Marcus Wigan <oxsys at optusnet.com.au>
>Subject: NYTimes... free speech with a twist...edit and be sued..
>
>Treasury Department Is Warning Publishers of the Perils of Criminal 
>Editing of the Enemy
>By ADAM LIPTAK
>
>Published: February 28, 2004
>
>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.
>
>Advertisement
>
>  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.
>
>  Adding illustrations is prohibited, too. To the baffled dismay of 
>publishers, editors and translators who have been briefed about the 
>policy, only publication of "camera-ready copies of manuscripts" is 
>allowed.
>
>  The Treasury letters concerned Iran. But the logic, experts said, 
>would seem to extend to Cuba, Libya, North Korea and other nations 
>with which most trade is banned without a government license.
>
>  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.
>
>  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."
>
>  Allan Adler, a lawyer with the Association of American Publishers, 
>said the trade group was unaware of any prosecutions for criminal 
>editing. But he said the mere fact of the rules had scared some 
>publishers into rejecting works from Iran.
>
>  Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil 
>liberties group, questioned the logic of making editors a target of 
>broad regulations that require a government license.
>
>  "There is no obvious reason why a license is required to edit where 
>no license is required to publish," he said. "They can print 
>anything as is. But they can't correct typos?"
>
>  In theory - almost certainly only in theory - correcting 
>typographical errors and performing other routine editing could 
>subject publishers to fines of $500,000 and 10 years in jail.
>
>  "Such activity," according to a September letter from the 
>department's Office of Foreign Assets Control to the Institute of 
>Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "would constitute the 
>provision of prohibited services to Iran."
>
>  Tara Bradshaw, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, confirmed the 
>restrictions on manuscripts from Iran in a statement. Banned 
>activities include, she wrote, "collaboration on and editing of the 
>manuscripts, the selection of reviewers, and facilitation of a 
>review resulting in substantive enhancements or alterations to the 
>manuscripts."
>
>  She did not respond to a request seeking an explanation of the 
>department's reasoning.
>
>  Congress has tried to exempt "information or informational 
>materials" from the nation's trade embargoes. Since 1988, it has 
>prohibited the executive branch from interfering "directly or 
>indirectly" with such trade. That exception is known as the Berman 
>Amendment, after its sponsor, Representative Howard L. Berman, a 
>California Democrat.
>
>  Critics said the Treasury Department had long interpreted the 
>amendment narrowly and grudgingly. Even so, Mr. Berman said, the 
>recent letters were "a very bizarre interpretation."
>
>  "It is directly contrary to the amendment and to the intent of the 
>amendment," he said. "I also don't understand why it's not in our 
>interest to get information into Iran."
>
>  Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University 
>of Pennsylvania, said the government had grown insistent on the 
>editing ban. "Since 9/11 and since the Bush administration took 
>office," he said, "the Treasury Department has been ramping up 
>enforcement."
>
>  Publishers may still seek licenses from the government that would 
>allow editing, but many First Amendment specialists said that was an 
>unacceptable alternative.
>
>  "That's censorship," said Leon Friedman, a Hofstra law professor 
>who sometimes represents PEN. "That's a prior restraint."
>
>  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?"
>
>  In an internal legal analysis last month, the publishers' 
>association found that the regulations "constitute a serious threat 
>to the U.S. publishing community in general and to scholarly and 
>scientific publishers in particular." Mr. Adler, the association's 
>lawyer, said it was trying to persuade officials to alter the 
>regulations and might file a legal challenge.
>
>  These days, journals published by the engineering institute reject 
>manuscripts from Iran that need extensive editing and run a 
>disclaimer with those they accept, said Michael R. Lightner, the 
>institute vice president responsible for publications. "It tells 
>readers," he said, "that the article did not get the final polish we 
>would like."
>
>_______________________________________________
>To unsubscribe from the privacy  list visit:
>http://lists.efa.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/privacy#unsubscribe


-- 
Roger Clarke              http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                 Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au            http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program, University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Baker Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre, U.N.S.W
Visiting Fellow in Computer Science, Australian National University