Cold War-Era Policy Still Giving Free Speech the Chills

What do Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda and British novelist Doris Lessing have in common (besides being Nobel Prize-winning writers who have all given us so many literary treasures)? During the Cold War, the U.S. government used "ideological exclusion" laws to ban them from this country because they were suspected of being communist sympathizers. In other words, the U.S. government barred them from the country not because of their actions, but because of their ideas. Sounds like one of those misguided schemes we look back on now with scorn, right? Oh that that were true…in actuality, the Bush administration revived the practice of ideological exclusion to deny visas to dozens more scholars, artists and writers who have been vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy.

In an effort to ensure the new Obama administration doesn't repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, dozens of free speech, academic, immigration and human rights groups sent a letter to Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano today urging them to end the sad practice of ideological exclusion. According to the letter, which was signed by groups as wide-ranging as the National Education Association, the Rutherford Institute and the American Sociological Association:

While the government plainly has an interest in excluding foreign nationals who present a threat to national security, no legitimate interest is served by the exclusion of foreign nationals on ideological grounds. To the contrary, ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States. It sends the message to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics. It undermines our ability to support political dissidents in other countries. And it deprives Americans of a right protected by the First Amendment.

The letter calls on the government to revisit several specific cases of ideological exclusion, including those of Haluk Gerger, a Turkish journalist; Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan human rights activist; Adam Habib, a South African political commentator; and Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss scholar of Islam.

Next week, the ACLU will present arguments in the case of Professor Ramadan, a Swiss professor and leading scholar of the Muslim world. In 2004, Professor Ramadan was set to teach at the University of Notre Dame until the government barred him from re-entering the U.S. The ACLU and other organizations are also challenging the exclusion of Professor Adam Habib, one of South Africa's leading scholars and political commentators.

The ACLU has an online petition calling on Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano to end ideological exclusion. Click here to send your message!

Add a comment (10)
Read the Terms of Use

blade

Is entering this country an unalienable right? I mean, if a person is not a citizen of the United States, they do not and should not have a right to enter this country. I would thing that the government should have the right to regulate non-citizens entering this country.

Vic Lvingston

NOW IS ALL MAKES [NON]SENSE

So THAT'S why this journalist, a U.S. citizen, has been subject to censorship and prior restraint of my internet speech -- "ideological exclusion."

I've been wondering for some time how the government (my presumed censor) could practice heavy-handed prior restraint and censorship.

Have I been classified as a "terrorist"?

I am also subject to relentless 24/7 surveillance, organized community gang-stalking, and what victims of the "extrajudicial targeting and punishment network" term "electronic harassment -- a euphemism for microwave radiation device TORTURE (see http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "American Gestapo" and "Domestic Torture Via Radiation Weaponry").

Or is that merely a suberfuge, a pretext under which to conduct a covert, ideological purge of persons deemed by ideological zealots to be "dissidents"?

I also believe I have been slandered -- a career killer for someone whose career hinges on credibility.

This has been going on for FIVE years now -- five years of degraded well-being and career decimation (For four years, I lost my ability to write. Only personal pleas to local FBI agents resulting in a reduction in the disabling effects of being a community stalker "target." (The abuse continues to this day.)

I have been reporting to ACLU blog readers for some time about the daily affronts to my right to free speech on the internet. My posts to political sites often elicit a "held for blog owner" message when I express a political opinion -- or simply say something that an apparent fusion center censor doesn't particularly like.

Now it makes (non)sense, in a Machiavellian, 1984-nightmarish way.

Please, readers, read the "internet filters" thread in the "Free Speech" section of http://blog.aclu.org.

Then help me convince the ACLU to renew its legal battle against this apparent draconian, politically-motivated censorship of free speech in these United States.

Why, ACLU attorneys, do you seem to persist in the belief that these affronts to Constitutional rights only happen to visitors to America, or to foreign-born Americans, or to citizens of foreign descent?

Evidence indicates that "average Americans" also are being denied their basic rights.

I have pleaded with you, via this blog site and in a phone conversation with someone who identified himself as an ACLU attorney, to investigate my case and help me fight for the restoration of free speech in America.

I thank the ACLU for keeping up the "contemporaneous record" of apparent affronts to my constitutional rights (the basis for a lawsuit, I hope).

Now it's time to act.

Here is the link to the "internet filters" thread of the Free Speech section:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-govern...

If any other citizens have experienced similar weird happenings while trying to make political posts on the web, PLEASE tell your story HERE.

And if any civil rights attorneys reading this would like to take my case on a contingency basis, please contact me via my web site.

Vic Lvingston

Let me add that malicious tampering also is part of this surveillance censorship "matrix." When I wrote the headline above, it said NOW IT ALL MAKES [NON]SENSE.

This malicious tampering and interference apparently is made possible by real-time site mirroring of my connection by a nearby "fusion center" and sophisticated third-party remote computing software that "hijacks" the functions of my computer.

Last night, I tried to post a corrected version of a post that was subject to such malicious tampering. Each time I re-posted, the original errors still showed up. The malicious surveillance censors apparently can change or "unchange" the copy at will.

This is using the telecommunications system as a tool of not just surveillance, censorship and prior restraint, but psychological harassment and control -- TELECOMM FASCISM.

I seek justice, and the assistance of the ACLU.

TERRY D E *

TERRESA DIANE CANNON EMERSON* AKA TERRY
HAVE HAD LAW SUIT FILED FROM TN/MS AND CIVIL/NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS VIOLATED
I WAS WIRED INTERNALLY WITH INTELLIGENT WIRE FOR HOMELAND EYES INCERTS, AUDIO,VIDEO , WORKED WITH ALL US GOV AND LOCAL SHERIFF, MY HOME CHILDREN BANK ACCTS TAKEN FROM ME HEART CUT FROM SO CALLED GOV WIRING THE INSIDE OF MY BODY ID THEFT IS ORGANIZED CRIME WITHOUT GOV PROTECTION FLAGGED FOR NASA AND STOPPED FROM REPORTING IN WITH FRAUD GUARDS AND HURT EVERY DAY ALONG WITH MEDICAL FRAUD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PLEASE HELP ME 10YRS NOW

TERRY D E *

PLEASE HELP ME prophesy1star@yahoo.com

TERRY D E *

FROM TN TO FLORIDA TO MS., AL. US. FLORIDA

TERRY D E *

yeah they hack right into anything

Mike H

Pablo Neruda was a KGB agent during the late 30's and early 40's. He is mentioned in the Venona documents as a KGB agent in Mexico City and assisted wannabe Trotsky assassin David Siqueiros in escaping from Mexico.

Not that anyone at the ACLU thinks such trivial matters warrant recognition, but true non the less.

Vic Livingston

I appear to have given the paid disinformation trolls something to do...

Is this our tax dollars at work?

If so: Is this statecraft?

Congress: Don't the anti-propaganda laws prevent government operatives from polluting political speech with subversive posts?

Of course, who's got the technical expertise to PROVE such a charge?

Is that the "excuse" that permits the apparent hijacking of political speech in America by those who try to restrict the free flow of ideas "by any means necessary?"

Just asking...

Jeff Peterson

When will the ACLU take up the rights of the unborn from the "PRO DEATH" organizations. When will the ACLU take up the cause to protect my second ammendment rights? "LIVE FREE OR DIE"

Sign Up for Breaking News