For Immediate Release
April 12, 2004

For further information, contact:

Joan Bertin, National Coalition Against Censorship, 212.807.6222 ext 15

Chris Finan, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, 212-587-4025

Larry Siems, PEN American Center, (212) 334-1660, ext. 105, (917) 378-0613,

Ruth Flower, American Association of University Professors, 202-737-5900, ext. 3029

NEW YORK - A group of First Amendment and authors' organizations today called for the elimination of government restrictions on publications and editorial collaborations involving authors, scholars, and scientists from certain foreign countries as an unwarranted and unconstitutional effort to suppress intellectual and academic discourse and inquiry.

Last fall, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department issued an opinion that trade embargoes against countries such as Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Libya and Sudan prohibit publishers from editing scientific and literary manuscripts by residents of those countries and restrict other academic and intellectual collaborations. The opinion had its roots in a little-known, rarely-enforced regulation adopted in the late 1980s.

In an amendment to the Trading with Enemies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Congress clearly specified that "information and information-related materials" are exempt from trade embargoes. OFAC's interpretation seems to contradict Congressional intent.

Specifically, OFAC asserts that trade embargoes apply to any "alteration or enhancement of informational materials." While OFAC issued a letter last week assuring the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers that its peer review process is exempt from Treasury Department regulations and that its style and copy editing practices are not prohibited, other activities that are often integral to the publication process remain off-limits. Specifically, "collaborative interaction" and any other "substantive or artistic alterations or enhancements of the manuscripts" would still be prohibited without prior government approval. Academic journals, for example, could be prohibited from substantive editing of a foreign manuscript without government permission. The same would apply to literary manuscripts submitted to a US publisher, editorials from foreign authors to US newspapers and magazines, and translations and collaborations of various kinds.

Larry Siems, Director of the Freedom to Write Program at PEN American Center, expressed concern that projects like the PEN Anthology of Contemporary Iranian Literature are in jeopardy. "Such a project could not proceed under these rules. Any anthology requires an editorial process, not just translation. We are especially concerned that these regulations will discourage US publishers from committing to publish such important works."

"The government has no business telling American publishers what they can edit and what they can't," Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said. "The First Amendment protects our right to read the authors of any nation."

Ruth Flower, director of Public Policy and Communications for the American Association of University Professors, expressed particular concern about the continuing ban on collaboration among scholars, when one of the scholars is from one of the sanctioned countries. "Congress clearly and specifically exempted the transmission of 'information' as well as 'information materials' from the restrictions on trade in goods and services under these Acts. Exchange of information includes exchange of ideas, opinions, scientific verification, and other kinds of substantive intellectual material, as would customarily occur in scholarly collaboration, whether or not related to imminent publication. We believe that the law should be applied as written," Flower said.

First Amendment advocates uniformly reject the government's "licensing" process by which publishers must apply for permission to edit individual manuscripts. In addition to being burdensome and uncertain - no standards or rules have been articulated - it amounts to a "prior restraint" on speech, long condemned as a violation of the First Amendment. There is no justification for such a serious infringement on the First Amendment where non-sensitive information is involved.

According to Joan Bertin, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, "it's absurd to treat publishers of scientific papers and works of fiction as if they are 'trading with the enemy.' This interpretation will undermine both our knowledge base and a cornerstone of democracy - free speech and the free exchange of ideas. In the effort to promote freedom abroad, the government seems willing to sacrifice it at home."

Statement in Opposition to the Embargo of Intellectual, Scientific, and Literary Works

The undersigned organizations protest application of Treasury Department trade embargo rules to scientific, literary and artistic work originating in countries that are currently the subject of an American trade embargo. This is a violation of the First Amendment right of Americans to read and learn from writers, artists, and thinkers of all nations.

Although the law governing US trade embargoes clearly exempts "information and information-related materials," the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Treasury Department, which enforces such trade embargoes, has concluded embargoes also apply to informational materials, such as publications, films, artwork, unless they are "camera-ready." This means that intellectual, scientific, and literary works from these countries may be embargoed if the US publisher, editor, or co-author alters or enhances the work in any way.

While the recent clarification from OFAC resolves some issues, it leaves many unanswered. OFAC reiterates that any "substantive or artistic alterations or enhancements" of a manuscript from an author in a sanctioned country is prohibited without prior government approval, and that "a collaborative interaction" is considered "a prohibited exportation of services." Such restrictions would affect vast amounts of intellectual and creative activity emanating from embargoed countries, including medical research, arts exchange programs, academic collaborations, scientific studies, and more. At a minimum, the rules will chill and hamper US publication of the works of authors in these countries. As a result, potentially important intellectual and creative work would be largely unavailable in the United States solely because of the author's country of residence.

There is no claim that these restrictions are necessary to protect the United States from terrorism, nor are they likely to persuade these countries to adopt policies that advance US interests. Indeed, it appears that they serve no purpose other than to keep Americans ignorant of work done by scientists, writers, and artists in certain parts of the world.

We deplore this threat to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of thought, inquiry, speech and publication. Protecting our right to create and receive information will do vastly more to keep the country productive, prepared, and secure than an ill-considered embargo on ideas.

Endorsed by:

American Association of University Professors
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
First Amendment Project
Friends Committee on National Legislation
National Coalition Against Censorship
Peacefire
PEN American Center
People For the American Way Foundation