Communists for Free Speech and Property Rights?

by | May 19, 2001

Some statements are so outrageous that they stand apart from all others. In my opinion, the winner this week for the most lunatic goes to the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). According to the Library Journal Academic News Wire of April 26, 2001, the CPUSA is claiming its property rights are being violated! […]

Some statements are so outrageous that they stand apart from all others. In my opinion, the winner this week for the most lunatic goes to the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).

According to the Library Journal Academic News Wire of April 26, 2001, the CPUSA is claiming its property rights are being violated! That’s right. It is pursuing litigation against Library of Congress (LC) to stop it from making available a “controversial collection of papers from CPUSA members from 1909–1944.”

The Library of Congress obtained these microfilm copies from the Russian government and wants to make them available to researchers in the U.S. However, Mark Rosenzweig, chief archivist for the Center for Marxist Studies, says this represents, “legal violations of the rights of CPUSA,” and reportedly Library of Congress’ acquisition is reportedly a “violation of free speech and free thought.” [!!!]

Library of Congress spokesman, Winston Tabb, called Rosenzweig’s claim, “breathtakingly illogical.”

The article doesn’t say what exactly is controversial about the papers, but I wonder what the communists want to hide. What were the particulars of the activities its members were engaged in?

When and if researchers uncover these secrets, The Academy Awards should repeat its award to Elia Kazan– this time not in spite of the fact that he exposed communists in the movie industry, but because he did.

Related Sites: Ad Hoc Committee for Naming Facts
The Ad Hoc Committee for Naming Facts endorses the awarding of an honorary Oscar to Elia Kazan at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Missouri v. Biden: Free Speech in the Crossfire

Missouri v. Biden: Free Speech in the Crossfire

The case against the government here is that it cannot do through third parties such as social media platforms what it is forbidden from doing directly by virtue of the First Amendment. The case in question is popularly known as Missouri v. Biden, and there is much at stake with its results.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest