Treasury Department Is Warning Publishers of the Perils of Criminal Editing of the Enemy

NYT ^ | February 28, 2004 | ADAM LIPTAK

[Eala]

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.

[much more at original]

[Eala]

What was that about a First Amendment...?

[coloradan]

"Interstate commerce" apparently means things that having nothing to do with interstate trade or commerce. And "trading" has to do with entirely non-economic things, apparently. Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution. It means whatever they say it means.

[templar]

Only to be esxpected. We're at 'war' ya know.

[Lael]

What was that about a First Amendment...?

Actually, the FIRST acceptable argument for "OUTSOOURCING"...

Send to INDIA for editing, retrieve the "camera ready" materials on the Internet!

FREE TRADE FOREVER!!!

[Sofa King]

And what, exactly is the point of this new edict?

[Da Mav]

Somebody with some sense ought to knock a few heads at Treasury over this one. As a strong Bush supporter this is embarassing nonsense as far as I am concerned.

[Willie Green]

"Interstate commerce" apparently means things that having nothing to do with interstate trade or commerce.

Well "interstate commerce" still refers to commerce conducted between the different states...

Nevertheless, I don't know what you're pi$$ing and moaning about when the Constitution also specifically authorizes regulation of commerce with foreign nations.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, ...

[ladyjane]

Maybe it's felt the messages contain code. Re-ordering or changing words may trigger an unintended response or send an unintended message.

[livius]

I would suspect that it is to require truth in information. Countries under a trade embargo can be reasonably assumed to be our enemies for some reason, but their friends here are quite capable of doing skillful "translations" or massaging the text to conceal its true meaning and sense.

This does not have to do with freedom of speech. Aside from the fact that it regulates trade, these people are quite free to say what they want. But it has to be as it really is, and not in its "edited for consumption by the fools of the Great Satan" version.

[FreePaul]

What first amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against the first amendment last year. I no longer applies to me. Why should it apply anyone else.

[coloradan]

Commerce: transactions (sales and purchases) having the objective of supplying commodities (goods and services)

Rearraging words in a paragraph is neither a sale nor a purchase, and has little to do with either goods or services rendered to or from Iran. (Are English translations also prohibited now?) Expanding the definition of "commerce" to include editing is as ridiculous as saying that a farmer growing corn on his own property to feed his own hogs, or that sawing a gun off to be 1/4" too short, is "interstate commerce" and so can be regulated by Congress.

If the government read the Second Amendment as expansively as they do the "interstate commerce" or "foreign trade" clauses, we would all be owning nuclear weapons today.

[coloradan]

Please explain how banning guns from within 1000' of a school is a matter of interstate commerce that can be properly banned by Congress.

[Eala]

As mentioned earlier ping.

[monkeywrench]

That's what I was thinking. But, wouldn't that be a good thing? (Them getting a wrong message, that is.)

[John Beresford Tipton]

"This does not have to do with freedom of speech."

Yo, Orwell!
We thought you were dead, just well rested I see!

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Please explain how banning guns from within 1000' of a school is a matter of interstate commerce that can be properly banned by Congress."

Ruled unconsitiutional in US v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
"Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority"

See:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html

[ladyjane]

It might not be a good thing. For example, what if spelling Washington correctly or incorrectly meant it was time to start a countdown for something?

[monkeywrench]

Yeah, assuming the powers in charge know the real code, themselves...

[coloradan]

... and reenacted the very next year with language added, banning guns that have travelled one or more times in interstate commerce within 1000 feet of a school zone. Not yet ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

[coloradan]

Incidentally, Congress thought that it was appropriate for them to do, irrespective of it later being found unconstitutional (the first time) by SCOTUS. Why did they think that? And why does the treas. dept. think that it's ok to ban editing, and cite "foreign commerce" as its authority?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Why did they think that?"

Because all organizations, including but not limited to govenmental branches and agencies like to grab as much power as an uninformed citizenry allows.