Skip to content
Click on cover to enlarge

Censorship: The Next Generation

«  page 2 of 2  »

by Matt Welch

Published in the June 2004 issue.  » BUY ISSUE     

Bookmark and Share             Facebook         Stumble      Get The Walrus on your Blackberry or Windows Mobile        RSS


Cole describes the ofac directive as “a piece of stupid bureaucracy,” not to mention explicitly counterproductive to undermining the Iranian theocracy, a goal that he and everyone interviewed for this article shared. “It is not beneficial to the United States to be deprived of access to the findings of Iranian social scientists,” he said. First-Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, who emigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union in 1975, called the restrictions “perverse,” adding: “What’s more, . . . some people might be bothered by technology transfers to Iran, but this limits the technology transfer from Iran.”

So what does the Office of Foreign Assets Control have to say for itself? “There are kind of two things that are important for us,” said ofac’s Public Affairs Specialist (Enforcement), who didn’t want her name used, even though it’s readily available at . “Number one, we never want to prohibit the flow of information. You know, the free flow of information that exists throughout the world, I mean in open civil society. . . .

Number two, we do need to follow these sanction laws – they’re there to protect our security; they’re there to protect American interests; they’re there to help protect and promote a better life for the freedom-loving people, in societies like Cuba. . . . So right now what we’re doing is trying to balance our national-security concerns along with the critical goal of allowing open and free flow of information.”

But doesn’t enforcing this standard directly “prohibit the flow of information?” “And that’s why I said we’re working right now to balance that.” What about apparent contradictions to the Berman Amendment?: “I’m not going to comment.” Criticism that disidents will suffer the most?: “Again it goes back. This is a concern.”

Which leaves real interpretation to outsiders. “It’s a long-standing issue that the bureaucracy of the federal government has often wished to find some way of limiting Americans’ interactions with those countries they consider to be enemies,” Professor Cole said. “With these policies they throw mud at the wall and see what sticks.”

The outcry has caused ofac to remove some of that mud – a new clarification was expected in April. “We’re in the process of reviewing that rule,” the ofac spokeswoman said, adding the improbable, “I think whatever we’re going to come up with, everyone’s going to be happy.”

Welch is a Contributing Editor for Reason magazine, columnist for the National Post, and proprietor of mattwelch.com.

Comments

Comment on this article


Will not be displayed on the site

Submit a comment online

Submit a letter to the Editor


    Cancel

The Walrus E-Newsletter

Online exclusives, events, offers:
get news of everything Walrus.


Article Tools

»    RSS Feed      Bookmark and Share

»  Email this article

»  Comment on this article

»  More in this issue

»  More in Field Notes

»  All articles by Matt Welch

»  BUY THIS ISSUE

ADVERTISE WITH US