>Treasury Department Is Warning Publishers of the Perils of Criminal
>Editing of the Enemy
>
>February 28, 2004
>By ADAM LIPTAK
>
>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.
>
>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."
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/national/28PUBL.html?ex=1078951774&ei=1&en=e6a120953f91ec13