

US customs blocking DVDs that depict "insurrection against the US" - gioele
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fans-of-J-Michael-Straczynski/139652459402959

======
gioele
Text of the post, for those who do not want to access facebook.com.

«Group participation: what's wrong with this picture?

I ordered some video-editing software from Hitfilm in the UK which also comes
with some instructional videos. So a few days later I get a call from FedEx
saying that the DVDs were being held at U.S. Customs until I filled out a
Video Declaration Form, which she said was now standard practice. Now, I'd
never heard of this before, so I called... back to ensure that this was indeed
FedEx and not someone phishing for information. Had them email me the form.

This is what the form said: "I/we declare the the films/videos contain no
obscene or immoral matter, nor any matter advocating or urging treason or
insurrection against the United States, nor any threat to take the life of or
inflict bodily harm upon any person in the United States."

Now, the first clause I can kinda see, though "immoral" is weird and there's
no standard definition of obscenity in the US, but let that go...what made my
eyebrows go up my forehead and down the other side was clause two. So I called
back the nice lady at FedEx -- who was only following instructions given to
her by Customs -- and asked what this was all about.

Apparently -- and this is only her understanding of the situation -- this is a
new thing being done by Customs and Homeland Security with FedEx, UPS, and
other carriers to make sure that films and videos with ideas or stories that
were at odds with the United States Government didn't get into the country, as
it was a form of terrorism (as further elaborated upon in the third and final
clause.) She added that some DVDs showing Occupy events in London and
elsewhere had gotten bounced because of the concern that these were being used
to coordinate activities here (as if with the internet people actually need
physical DVDs for that sort of thing but that's neither here nor there).

Under this new stipulation, if V for Vendetta had, for instance, been produced
in the UK (instead of just filmed there), importing it into the US would be
considered subject matter "advocating or urging treason or insurrection." And
if you lied about it on the form, you could be held liable for this.

So there are now very literally guardians at the gate ensuring that the wrong
sorts of ideas, movies or DVDs are not allowed into the country without
investigation and/or prosecution. And most pernicious of all, they don't
actually define what they mean by advocating treason or insurrection, any more
than they define what "immoral" means, it's whatever they decide it means, so
you could be breaking the law without knowing you're doing it, until they
decide you're doing it.

Thoughts?»

~~~
loceng
Wow. Mindblowing censorship.

And I imagine if someone produces such content INSIDE of the U.S. then they'll
somehow disappear / be put in jail / have their content blocked / removed / be
forced to shutdown?

~~~
maratd
> Mindblowing censorship.

There's a lot of spin on what the law actually is. Some of it by people mis-
interpreting guidelines issued by bureaucrats who were themselves exaggerating
a bit.

Treason is an offense in the US, dictated by the constitution. Advocacy of
treason is also an offense. The entire point of passing through customs is
that goods that are legal elsewhere, but illegal in the US, are blocked. While
it's perfectly OK to make videos about the destruction of the US if you're in
Saudi Arabia, it is NOT ok to do that in the US. So it gets blocked at
customs.

~~~
_delirium
Advocacy of treason in a general sense is legal in the U.S.; _Yates v. US_
(1957) held that "advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an
abstract doctrine" was protected by the First Amendment, and therefore someone
couldn't be jailed solely on the basis that they were a member of the
Communist Party and advocated a communist revolution.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States>)

To prosecute (after _Yates_ ) you'd need some additional evidence that an
individual's advocacy wasn't merely abstract, general advocacy of revolution,
but concrete and imminent enough to present a "clear and present danger", e.g.
because of specific steps being taken to actually overthrow the government in
the near future.

Similarly, a state actually seceding from the U.S. remains illegal, but
someone merely abstractly advocating that a state _ought_ to secede, as the
Texas governor half-seriously did, and many "Sons of the Confederacy" type
groups more earnestly do, is legal and not considered punishable as treason,
assuming that the groups aren't actively planning raids of federal forts or
something.

------
tazzy531
Here is the relevant regulation: [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=650...](http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=65051aecfed3472727880e5841a7a9f7;rgn=div7;view=text;node=19%3A1.0.1.1.7.0.225;idno=19;cc=ecfr)

Title 19: Customs Duties PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE

Browse Previous | Browse Next Immoral Articles

§ 12.40 Seizure; disposition of seized articles; reports to United States
attorney.

(a) Any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print,
picture, or drawing containing any matter advocating or urging treason or
insurrection against the United States or forcible resistance to any law of
the United States, or containing any threat to take the life of or inflict
bodily harm upon any person in the United States, seized under section 305,
Tariff Act of 1930, shall be transmitted to the United States attorney for his
consideration and action.

(b) Upon the seizure of articles or matter prohibited entry by section 305,
Tariff Act of 1930 (with the exception of the matter described in paragraph
(a) of this section), a notice of the seizure of such articles or matter shall
be sent to the consignee or addressee.

(c) When articles of the class covered by paragraph (b) of this section are of
small value and no criminal intent is apparent, a blank assent to forfeiture,
Customs Form 4607, shall be sent with the notice of seizure. Upon receipt of
the assent to forfeiture duly executed, the articles shall be destroyed if not
needed for official use and the case closed.

(d) In the case of a repeated offender or when the facts indicate that the
importation was made deliberately with intent to evade the law, the facts and
evidence shall be submitted to the United States attorney for consideration of
prosecution of the offender as well as an action in rem under section 305 for
condemnation of the articles.

(e) All cases in which articles have been seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1305(a)
should be referred to the U.S. Attorney, for possible institution of
condemnation proceedings, within 4 days, but in no event more than 14 days,
after the date of Customs initial examination. The referral to the U.S.
Attorney should be initiated simultaneously with the mailing to the importer
of the seizure notice and the assent to forfeiture form. If the importer
declines to execute an assent to forfeiture of the articles other than those
mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section and fails to submit, within 30 days
after being notified of his privilege to do so, a petition under section 618,
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1618), for remission of the forfeiture and
permission to export the seized articles, then the U.S. Attorney, who has
already received information concerning the seizure pursuant to this
paragraph, may proceed with the condemnation action.

(f) If seizure is made of books or other articles which do not contain obscene
matter but contain information or advertisements relative to means of causing
unlawful abortion, the procedure outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e)
of this section shall be followed.

(g) In any case when a book is seized as being obscene and the importer
declines to execute an assent to forfeiture on the ground that the book is a
classic, or of recognized and established literary or scientific merit, a
petition addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury with evidence to support
the claim may be filed by the importer for release of the book. Mere
unsupported statements or allegations will not be considered. If the ruling is
favorable, release of such book shall be made only to the ultimate consignee.

(h) Whenever it clearly appears from information, instructions, advertisements
enclosed with or appearing on any drug or medicine or its immediate or other
container, or otherwise that such drug or medicine is intended for inducing
unlawful abortion, such drug or medicine shall be detained or seized.

[28 FR 14710, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 71–165, 36 FR 12209, June 29,
1971; T.D. 76–261, 41 FR 39022, Sept. 14, 1976; T.D. 82–145, 47 FR 35477, Aug.
16, 1982; T.D. 85–186, 50 FR 47207, Nov. 15, 1985; T.D. 93–66, 58 FR 44130,
Aug. 19, 1993]

§ 12.41 Prohibited films.

(a) Importers of films, shall certify on Customs Form 3291 that the imported
films contain no obscene or immoral matter, nor any matter advocating or
urging treason or insurrection against the United States or forcible
resistance to any law of the United States, nor any threat to take the life or
inflict bodily harm upon any person in the United States. When imported films
are claimed to be free of duty as American goods returned, this certification
may be made on Customs Form 3311 in the space designated “Remarks” in lieu of
on Form 3291.

(b) Films exposed abroad by a foreign concern or individual shall be previewed
by a qualified employee of the Customs Service before release. In case such
films are imported as undeveloped negatives exposed abroad, the approximate
number of feet shall be ascertained by weighing before they are allowed to be
developed and printed and such film shall be previewed by a qualified employee
of the Customs Service after having been developed and printed.

(c) Any objectionable film shall be detained pending instructions from
Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service or a decision of the court as to its final
disposition.

~~~
tazzy531
I find two parts particularly interesting:

(f) If seizure is made of books or other articles which do not contain obscene
matter but contain information or advertisements relative to means of causing
unlawful abortion, the procedure outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e)
of this section shall be followed.

and

(b) Films exposed abroad by a foreign concern or individual shall be previewed
by a qualified employee of the Customs Service before release. In case such
films are imported as undeveloped negatives exposed abroad, the approximate
number of feet shall be ascertained by weighing before they are allowed to be
developed and printed and such film shall be previewed by a qualified employee
of the Customs Service after having been developed and printed.

~~~
tibbon
I have to wonder if this would be a cheap way to get my film developed? Just
drive over the Canadian border and demand that they develop a few hundred feet
of film for me. Would really help in production costs of small films shot on
film.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Yeah, but good luck getting it back.

------
icehawk
This isn't new.

This sort of policy has been around for a long time, take a look at the Post
Office Act which incorporated the United States Post Office Department into
the United States Cabinet. §148 made it illegal to send any obscene or
disloyal materials through the mail.

------
evmar
From Fedex's website (<http://www.fedex.com/id/tools/video.html>), a copy of
such a form:
[http://images.fedex.com/downloads/shared/shipdocuments/blank...](http://images.fedex.com/downloads/shared/shipdocuments/blankforms/video_form.pdf)

Text from the form matches that in the post.

But importantly, note the _date_ on the form: "EFECTIVE 07/01/2001 REVISION
11/19/2001"

~~~
bri3d
The laws behind this have existed since earlier than 1948 [0]. The revision of
the form is interesting but censoring anti-government material at ports of
entry is _far_ from new.

[0] See
[http://uscode.house.gov/download/XHTML/uscprelim/PRELIMusc18...](http://uscode.house.gov/download/XHTML/uscprelim/PRELIMusc18.htm)
§552. Officers aiding importation of obscene or treasonous books and articles

------
saizai
Slightly different but directly relevant:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Proj...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project)
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf>

tl;dr: it's illegal to advise terrorist groups how to peacefully advocate for
human rights, because that might make them more legitimate

------
jrockway
This is what's so odd about US customs. They seem to think most digital
materials coming into the country are physically carried over the borders.

Nope.

~~~
ericd
Well, the electric fields of the wires or light waves of the fiber optics
_propagate_ over the borders...

~~~
jrockway
Hey there, keep that to yourself :)

------
neilparikh
Here is a link directly to the post, just in case new content is posted ->
[https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3283215305...](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=328321530536050&id=139652459402959)

------
jcromartie
This sounds like a relic Of the Red Scare, if anything. I doubt it's that new.

------
pitiburi
...George Orwell was a visionary. Sadly.

------
ebaysucks
Wait until customs outsource this policy to the file sharing companies of this
world. Say goodbye to your ROI Dropbox investors.

------
avallark
1984

------
chc
OK, I know we've ventured a little more into politics lately with the SOPA
thing, but this is not in any way germane to Hacker News. It's pure political
outrage. Please flag this kind of story if you want to keep up the level of
discourse here.

~~~
andrewfelix
From the guidelines...

 _"What to Submit...Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That
includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a
sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity."_

Also from the guidelines...

 _Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site._

~~~
chc
Also from the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics … If they'd
cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

How do you think this gratifies anyone's intellectual curiosity? This is not
an intellectual topic. It stirs up feelings of political outrage, sure — but
those are actually _harmful_ to the status quo we try to maintain here. I'm
not saying don't talk about it — I'm just saying that there are better forums.

And I would not have complained except that there has recently been a large
influx of users to the site and it seems to mostly be these people, in the
double-digit and low-three-digit membership times, who are upvoting this. So
do you have a better suggestion that doesn't boil down to "Just sit down and
let the lowest common denominator float to the top"? Because I'm sorry, but I
would rather Hacker News not become yet another repository of cat pictures.

~~~
kstenerud
"it seems to mostly be these people, in the double-digit and low-three-digit
membership times, who are upvoting this."

How do you know this?

~~~
chc
One can confirm it pretty easily by glancing at the profiles of the people
commenting. For example, the top two comments are by people who have been here
less than three months.

~~~
kstenerud
But that only confirms who is commenting in this thread, not who is upvoting.

