CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Fight Censorship at the BorderTomorrow in a Boston federal court, Melissa Goodman of the ACLU National Security Project will be challenging the federal government’s refusal to grant a visa to respected South African scholar Adam Habib. Back in the fall, the State Department denied Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is banned because he has “engaged in terrorist activities,” but the government failed to explain the basis for its inflammatory accusation, let alone provide even a shred of evidence to prove it. We do know, however, that Habib – a distinguished professor and popular pundit in his home country – has openly objected to the war in Iraq and other U.S. foreign policies. And we have reason to believe that the government is excluding him based on ideological grounds. By refusing to give Professor Habib a visa, the government is violating the constitutional speech rights of American citizens and residents. How, you ask? Because the right to hear speech is protected by the First Amendment too. Stifling the political debate in this country, the government’s refusal to grant visas to critics of this administration, like Habib and Tariq Ramadan, amounts to nothing less than censorship at the border. That is why the ACLU filed this lawsuit last year on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S. Sherif Fam of one of these groups, the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights, blogged today about why his organization joined our lawsuit: Presenting no legitimate reason to deny Dr. Habib an entry visa, the State Department clearly intends to deny the American public access to views which may not conform exactly to the Administration's views. Besides violating the rights granted by our Constitution, what does that say about our country when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion?Good question! We’ll keep fighting for every American’s right to enjoy the vigorous protection of speech that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 3 Responses to "Fight Censorship at the Border" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jun 25th, 2008 at 7:33am
You people have lost your minds.
Jun 25th, 2008 at 12:07pm
The United States Government is tasked with the responsibility of granting visas to those they deem appropriate to enter the country. I do not believe that a visa application equate to a right-to-entry. And, if the people have a Constitutional right to hear speech that is fine. The government still has no requirement to allow him in. It is the right of every American, then, to apply for a visa to South Africa and hear their hearts out. Nation-states exist for their people, exclusively. Where did we get into the business of granting rights to those on the outside?
Apr 8th, 2009 at 6:35pm
I don't understand the fuss being made about hearing, and seeing someone speak in this country. We have the Internet, TV networks like CNN, Al Jezeera, Skynet, etc., that will give anyone with a valid message to be heard; and, the above media allows far greater exposure to one's thoughts than an auditorium would offer no matter how large.
It may their ego that needs to be satisfied, and not their need to travel to the U.S. to be heard. The old ways of doing things has changed, in many ways, so why not change this outdated need to be seen. It isn't that important. The message is important, not the personality.