The Scientist :: OFAC reverses embargo ruling
OFAC reverses embargo ruling
Decision allows US publishers to edit manuscripts from Cuba, Iran, and Sudan | By John Dudley Miller
In a reversal of almost all of the controversial prohibitions enacted in September 2003 that led to a lawsuit against it by a coalition of US publishers 3 months ago, the Treasury Department reauthorized American authors and publishers to collaborate with and edit the scientific and other manuscripts of citizens in trade-embargoed countries yesterday (December 15).
The Treasury Department said it acted "to further promote the free flow of information around the world and to ensure the voices of dissidents and others living in Cuba, Iran, and Sudan are heard," according to an anonymous Treasury official speaking through a spokesperson.
But Edward Davis, one of the publishers' attorneys, said yesterday that the publishers are not yet ready to drop their lawsuit, filed September 27, because the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), by granting a general license, continues to assert that it can regulate informational materials. The plaintiffs argue that OFAC has no such authority.
"I think it's nice that the government has recognized the validity of our position for freedom of speech and freedom of the press," said Marc Brodsky, president of the American Institute of Physics and executive council chair of the American Association of Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishers Division, one of the plaintiffs. "It's just a shame that we had to spend so much effort and time and money to go to court to get their attention, despite the fact we went to them ahead of time."
In January 2002, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) stopped publishing manuscripts from embargoed-country scientists after officials at Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) told the organization informally that publishing and providing other services to members in embargoed nations might be illegal. In September 2003, it formally banned all editing of IEEE manuscripts, even correcting spelling and punctuation errors.
Last April, OFAC reauthorized IEEE—but not American publishers in general—to edit manuscripts from embargoed nations and to provide some services to them. Cecelia Jankowski, IEEE's managing director of regional activities, welcomed yesterday's ruling, saying, "It further confirms our interpretation of the April ruling that enabled IEEE to resume all publishing activity."
Posted by Glenn Hauman at December 19, 2004 08:49 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingAnd what do you want to bet the OFAC won't back down? They're going to court.
It's going to be a battle of jurisdiction versus Freedom of the press.
Thanks for posting this Mr. David.
Errr, ummm, Glenn.
OK, Now when is Castro going to free librariians and teachers from his dungeons. Maybe, if he changed his name to Pinochet he'd be indicted too.
So you mean the sky is not falling after all? Or it still might fall? Or we stopped it from falling, but only for a moment? Man, being Chicken Little sure is confusing. . .
Chicken Little
(a.k.a. Jim in Iowa)
It means the sky has granted us a reprieve, but could fall at any minute.
Frank,
Castro's Cuba isn't part of the USA.
The US Constitution doesn't apply there.
And in other good anti-censorship news, Marvel has not yet dropped Orson Scott Card from Ultimate Iron Man because some readers disagree with his personal religious and political views. Not that this would ever have even been an issue for someone who read his fictional works. Fortunately some can still separate an author's personal beliefs from his fictional works.
Jim in Iowa
Was there any threat that he would have been dropped?
I never said Marvel actually threatened to drop him. I just said that some readers have already promised to not buy Ultimate Iron Man because they don't agree with his views. They questioned why Marvel would hire such a "thug" in the first place. There is plenty on other comic websites that dug up essays Card has written over the last 15 years to tell why Marvel was wrong to hire a homophobic, war loving, conservative Mormon writer. (It is not a "strawman" argument when I am virtually quoting what various people have posted on Newsarama, and what one reviewer on another site (I think comicsnexus) wrote.)
I posted it somewhat tongue in cheek since as a conservative I still buy PAD's comics and books. even though I know his liberal views are worlds apart from my own. I find it somewhat ironic the reactions from some on "the other side" to a more conservative writer. As with PAD, I would hope people would judge Card by his stories. And if anyone has read Card, he has never had a story that bashes homosexuals. (He has expressed his personal belief in an essay, but that is no different than PAD expressing his thoughts about the Iraq War on this site.)
Jim in Iowa
Here is one example from the talkback on Newarama. By no means is this everyone's reaction, but neither is he alone:
Before I knew about Card's hatred and homophobia, I was a big fan of his work. I think Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead (but not so much the other books in the series) are among the best SF novels ever written. And had he never made it publicly known -- through the above essay and others -- what kind of a bigot he was, I'd have kept on buying his work.
I am willing to separate the art from the artist and purchase work created by people whose behaviour I find offensive, annoying, or egregious...
...but I will not purchase work created by people who spread hate and bigotry in public.
And I will not purchase work from companies who support those people.
I just dropped every Marvel title. This is an appropriate time to call for a boycott. If DC had hired David Duke to write a comic, I'd hold the same position.
Just change the name from OSC to PAD and change the issue from opposition to gay marriage to support of the same.
I have no worries that Marvel will actually drop Card, but I was not creating a "strawman" when I suggested some are asking for Marvel to do so.
Jim in Iowa
Not that I agree in nay respect with OSC's position as he's made it public, but isn't it interesting how all the Free Speech defenders are absent from Card's defense?
I really enjoyed Ender's Game. I'm highly interested in reading the Alvin Maker series, from the short story printed in Legends. But I find his comments offensive.
But I'm not going to burn my X-Men out of protest. Where are all the folks that were defending PAD a few months back when some Troll was calling for a PAD boycott because of his opposition to Bush?
I really find the prospect of using economic pressure to suppress a view you don't like distasteful. OSC's Maker series is still on my "want to read someday" list. It's after a good number of other books, but he is a talented writer with something interesting to say in his novels.
Never said I was gonna boycott Card because of his views.
Never read his books to begin with (too much I want to read, too little time to read it all)
Let him hate whoever he wants, it's his right...not like he's in the government and able use the force of the government to press his ignorant beliefs...
I never said Marvel actually threatened to drop him.
No, but you said that Marvel "has yet to drop" him, implying at least that they were considering it. I was not aware that there were any boycotts of his Ultimate Iron Man, although I remember some controversy on his opinions about homosexuality from the early 90s.
Now, as one of the most radical free speech advocates (although why believing in the first amendment is considered "radical" is beyond me), let me say that Card has the right to express his opinion. Other people have the right to choose not to buy his work for whatever reason that they want, although I think it's unfortunate that people feel the need to organize boycotts in an effort to silence people. I find such boycotts offensive, although they are not illegal under the constitution.
Incidentally, I find the people who are organizing boycotts of department stores like Macy's in order to force their clerks to greet them with a "Merry Christmas" instead of a "Happy Holidays" to be just plain ridiculous.
As for Card, he happens to be one of my favorite writers. I'm not buying Ultimate Iron Man, but that's because I have no interest in the Ultimate line at all. I have however, read many of his novels and enjoyed them, even though I've known for years that I don't agree with some of his opinions.
I don't know that I'd call Den a radical free speech defender, just a staunch one. And he's been pretty consistant in his defense of it.
I'm curious as to how many so-called free speech defenders are aware of the hypocrisy that some of them act out. How many people rally for free speech when Todd McFarlane gets hit with a $15 million fine for usurping someone else's likeness for commercial use, yet then turn around and drop all their Marvel comics because OSC is going to write one?
Absolutely, people are free to make whatever economic choices they want. Yet there is a fundamental conflict of ideals between supporting free speech, and using economic pressure to silence someone who expresses a view you find distasteful.
KingBobb:
>I'm curious as to how many so-called free speech defenders are aware of the hypocrisy that some of them act out. How many people rally for free speech when Todd McFarlane gets hit with a $15 million fine for usurping someone else's likeness for commercial use, yet then turn around and drop all their Marvel comics because OSC is going to write one?
.. or vice versa.
>Absolutely, people are free to make whatever economic choices they want. Yet there is a fundamental conflict of ideals between supporting free speech, and using economic pressure to silence someone who expresses a view you find distasteful.
George Jr. voiced that he sees this as free speech with consequences. Remember when he was asked about the Dixie Chicks' statement? I'd argue that there is a difference between using your free speech and purchasing power to voice your dissent towards a creator and demanding that they be fired. *Side note, in the most recent Time Magazine, a juicey lil statistic made me begin to wonder exactly how high a percentage of the protests and demands influencing anything "morally questionable" is actually perpetrated by a fraction of a percent of the population. Are we truly sheep letting others dictate what we see?*
Fred
Fred, if that statistic was anything like what I've seen regarding FCC complaints, I think I'd have to say that we are. Several news articles have included a statement that says that pretty much 100% of all complaints received by the FCC in the past 2 years, outside of complaints about the Superbowl, were filed by the Parents' Tevevision Council, which represents about 1 million people.
That's a lot of people.
On the other hand, the US Census is reporting that, as of right now, there are 295,021,127 people in the US. Making the PTC less than 0.5% of our population.
Granted, the FCC claims to investigate a claim whether there's one complaint or 1 million. But the point is, the FCC, I don't think, institutes a lot of investigations without claims. The PTC is effectively controlling what the FCC looks at, and thus regulating.
Part of the problem, also, is that the FCC does not have a process that allows people to support various shows. The FCC complaint form, as I understand it, lacks a "I support this type of broadcacting" box. Who knows, maybe if 30 million people had said "more Janet Jackson boobies" we'd all be in a very different TV environment right now.
KingBobb:
>Fred, if that statistic was anything like what I've seen regarding FCC complaints, I think I'd have to say that we are. Several news articles have included a statement that says that pretty much 100% of all complaints received by the FCC in the past 2 years, outside of complaints about the Superbowl, were filed by the Parents' Tevevision Council, which represents about 1 million people.
Yeah, that's it. The stat was 99.6%, if I remember correctly. If I were a television exec, I'd be attempting some way to identify said individuals as group members or some way of encouraging those from the other side to voice their thoughts. Although, as stated often before.... people typically don't talk about what they like anymore. They only voice an opinion to complain.
>That's a lot of people. On the other hand, the US Census is reporting that, as of right now, there are 295,021,127 people in the US. Making the PTC less than 0.5% of our population.
This is what truly frightens me for our future. Extremists that are viewed as the norm when the average Joe sees this info on the news and assumes it is the norm. Many in our society like to consider themselves as a part of this norm and I'm not so sure that coordinated groups producing mass complaints don't influence ole Joe.
>Granted, the FCC claims to investigate a claim whether there's one complaint or 1 million. But the point is, the FCC, I don't think, institutes a lot of investigations without claims. The PTC is effectively controlling what the FCC looks at, and thus regulating.
Exactamundo. The FCC has proven itself a slave to politics time and again. To say the FCC is a lame horse is to minimize the power that they give to the extreme right.
>Part of the problem, also, is that the FCC does not have a process that allows people to support various shows. The FCC complaint form, as I understand it, lacks a "I support this type of broadcacting" box. Who knows, maybe if 30 million people had said "more Janet Jackson boobies" we'd all be in a very different TV environment right now.
Agreed. I, for one, am more concerned about the effects of violence in football on small ones, than the sun-covered boobie.
Fred
Well, not Janet Jackson, but preferably Heather Graham, Charisma Carpenter, Alyson Hannigan, & Anna Paquin...
Interestingly enough, I went to the newsarama site and appears that the people who complained about Card and his views on homosexuality had their comments deleted.
Hmmmm.
Wonder if all PAD posters are Buffy/Angel/X-Men (movie) fans?
Hard to pigeonhole Heather Graham...Lost in Space? Roller Girl? Austin Powers?
Interestingly enough, I went to the newsarama site and appears that the people who complained about Card and his views on homosexuality had their comments deleted.
Den, did you try a search for Orson Scott Card on their site? Last night I had a hard time finding the original thread that was up almost a week ago, but I found others. The one I quoted was still up last night. So they may have been deleted, or they may just be buried.
No, but you said that Marvel "has yet to drop" him, implying at least that they were considering it. I was not aware that there were any boycotts of his Ultimate Iron Man, although I remember some controversy on his opinions about homosexuality from the early 90s.
I did not mean to imply they were actually considering it--of course, that doesn't mean they aren't either since I have heard nothing official from them since the minor controversy started when the news came out a few days ago. Since it has been maybe a week since it was announced, I doubt there is any formal boycott, but there are clearly people who are calling for it and others simply saying that due to Card's views they personally will not buy it. (I disagree with a boycott, but feel the latter is their right).
Jim in Iowa
Not that I agree in nay respect with OSC's position as he's made it public, but isn't it interesting how all the Free Speech defenders are absent from Card's defense?
Kingbobb, since I brought this up, let me mention that there are some on the Newsarama site that do defend Card. No one had attacked Card on this site, so I was not expecting anyone to come to his defense. I was just finding it ironic to see the reaction against a conservative writer in a way similar to how some conservatives treat PAD.
I really enjoyed Ender's Game. I'm highly interested in reading the Alvin Maker series, from the short story printed in Legends.
I enjoyed Alvin Maker, but they are very different from Ender's Game. It would be like comparing PAD's ST:New Frontier to his King Arthur (in New York) series. The Alvin Maker series is almost a fantasy version of early America, with some obvious Mormon concepts/themes. I recommend the series, but be aware they are a whole different style.
What I find ironic about the whole issue about Card is most reactions are about his opposition to gay marriage. Yet in two of his books (Songmaster and a book in the Homecoming series), he has characters who are clearly gay, and they are portrayed in a positive light. I actually was surprised to find out his stance on a couple of conservative issues. I thought he was a rather liberal mormon.
As with PAD, I think it is more fair to deal with the content of a particular book than to just make a generalization based on an author's personal beliefs. I like Madrox and don't like Fallen Angel. I like ST: New Frontiers but not Sir Apropos. But I would never tell someone to not read PAD simply because he was for gay marriage and opposed Bush and the War in Iraq.
Jim in Iowa
Den, did you try a search for Orson Scott Card on their site? Last night I had a hard time finding the original thread that was up almost a week ago, but I found others. The one I quoted was still up last night. So they may have been deleted, or they may just be buried.
I looked at the message board for the Ultimate Iron Man thread. One of the posts was a threat from the moderator to delete any posts that weren't "civil." Another post quoted an earlier post that apparently been deleted since it wasn't there anymore.
Den,
Here are the links I found:
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23341&highlight=orson+scott+card
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23391&highlight=orson+scott+card
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23701&highlight=orson+scott+card
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23490&highlight=orson+scott+card
Here is what I read on comiscnexus:
Paul Sebert: I said it before, I'll say it again, as long as it doesn't jack the price up, or force me to buy multiple copies of the same thing, I've got no problem with gimmick covers. If a little shiny foil, or glow-in-the-dark ink helps a book stand out on the shelves... well more power to it.
I was excited about this when I first heard about it, but it seems
that in addition to being the author of Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card has written a few ring-wing-nut essays displaying views that make John Byrne seem like a fairly reasonable human being.
Tom Spurgeon's excellent Comics Reporter blog has pretty good rundown and links to his essays, which include such gems as "The hypocrites of homosexuality."
No I'm not asking anyone to boycott this book as, well every time some fans publicly boycott a book its sales go up. And I know that Mr. Card has a right to his own views (which probably weren't taken into account when he got the gig), but I have a right to not buy this book.
Here is the link to the page:
http://comicsnexus.insidepulse.com/article.php?contentid=30252
As some have said before, all of this press probably will only help Ultimate Iron Man. I bet there were people who would never have even heard about the mini-series if not for this controversy. But as you can see, Card's personal views cause some to reject his works.
On a side note, I do admit that when I did not know PAD's views on some things, I enjoyed his books more. Now, things that went right by me are rather obvious. So I understand it can be difficult in fictional works to divorce the author from the work. But I would miss out on some great stories if I let my personal disagreements with PAD keep me from reading his books. And in some ways, his works have a deeper meaning now that I know him better. So I would not choose to return to ignorance, I just recognize that my perspective has changed a little as I read his works.
Jim in Iowa
"Not that this would ever have even been an issue for someone who read his fictional works."
I have read all of the main four Ender books, and since destroyed my copies and will never purchase anything by him again. Nor will I pay to see any film adaption of any of his works, ever. After the cruel, dishonest and evil things he has said about people like me, that wretched excuse for a human will never see so much as a dime of my money ever again.
Had he kept his bigotry and malice to himself, I'd still be buying his books (in hardback, no less). He chose to exercise his free speech rights to defame all gays everywhere, to call us names and run our character through the mud. I'll use my free speech rights to call the man the bigot that he is, and my rights as a consumer never to give him another dime.