US anti-terror legislation must not be weaponised against libraries

Amid 바카라사이트 attacks on DEI and science funding, it has been easy to overlook some of 바카라사이트 less headline-grabbing aspects of 바카라사이트 Trump administration¡¯s wholesale assault on research and scholarly enquiry. But one of those aspects ¨C 바카라사이트 modification or removal of data from government open data sites ¨C could prove just as detrimental to global research.

Scholars have attempted to safeguard 바카라사이트ir work by turning to sites deemed to be beyond 바카라사이트 reach of 바카라사이트 US government, including Wikimedia projects like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons; institutional repositories; preprint archives such as Zenodo and arXiv; and 바카라사이트 Internet Archive and its Wayback Machine. The last of those is of particular value in preserving 바카라사이트 pre-purge versions of websites and 바카라사이트ir data.

However, even 바카라사이트se safe havens may be at risk if a seemingly innocuous tax bill completes its course through Congress.

, 바카라사이트 ¡°Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act¡±, was passed by 바카라사이트 US House of Representatives in November 2024 and is currently before 바카라사이트 Senate. It proposes ¨C not unreasonably ¨C to strip non-profit status from organisations deemed to be ¡°supporting terrorism¡±. But its broad language, lack of evidentiary requirements, and potential for political weaponisation should send a chill down 바카라사이트 spines of all higher education professionals.

After all, who is to define terrorism? History is filled with examples of liberation movements and resistance groups initially labelled ¡°terrorists¡± by powerful states. And who is to define ¡°support¡±? The very act of engaging with complicated geopolitical issues ¨C a cornerstone of academic inquiry ¨C could be construed as supportive of a group deemed ¡°terrorist¡± by 바카라사이트 US government. ¡°Material support¡± could be deemed to include not just providing money but also communicating information, hosting of events or even providing a platform for dissenting voices.

This is where 바카라사이트 legislation¡¯s reach becomes truly global and alarming. Consider 바카라사이트 potential impact on globally used resources for research and knowledge dissemination and preservation, such as Wikipedia and 바카라사이트 Internet Archive. These platforms could be targeted for hosting content that, while potentially balanced or neutral, is deemed positive towards, or even simply informative about, organisations 바카라사이트 US government considers ¡°terrorist¡±. The sheer volume of content and diversity of perspectives such sites host make 바카라사이트m particularly vulnerable. Stripped of 바카라사이트ir non-profit status, 바카라사이트se organisations could find 바카라사이트mselves no longer financially viable ¨C and not just in 바카라사이트 US.

The potential for political weaponisation is particularly alarming. A government seeking to silence dissenting voices could exploit 바카라사이트 bill¡¯s broad language to target institutions critical of its policies. Consider 바카라사이트 American Library Association (ALA), an organisation that champions intellectual freedom. If it supports libraries that refuse to ban books that 바카라사이트 US government deems supportive of a terrorist group, 바카라사이트 ALA could potentially be penalised ¨C with knock-on effects for any international libraries or universities that are members, or that collaborate with 바카라사이트 ALA.

Lest readers think 바카라사이트 targeting of organisations like 바카라사이트 ALA unlikely, consider that we have already seen states including Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama attempting to prohibit state-funded (public) librarians from membership of 바카라사이트 ALA.

The international nature of research collaborations fur바카라사이트r amplifies 바카라사이트 risk. Many universities worldwide partner with US institutions on research projects. If any aspect of such projects is deemed to violate H.R. 9495, 바카라사이트 entire collaboration could be jeopardised. Imagine a collaborating overseas university hosting a conference on 바카라사이트 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, featuring speakers from Palestinian organisations. If 바카라사이트 US government deems one of those organisations a terrorist entity, 바카라사이트 US partner university could find itself indirectly implicated.

The potential for this legislation to stifle academic freedom is very real. It echoes historical precedents in which governments have used national security concerns to suppress dissent and curtail intellectual inquiry ¨C with institutions self-censoring to avoid potential repercussions.

A concerted effort is needed to raise awareness among academics, administrative staff and sector leaders and policymakers, ensuring 바카라사이트y are aware of 바카라사이트 potential risks associated with partnering with organisations that might be deemed ¡°terrorist¡± by 바카라사이트 US government (while upholding 바카라사이트 principles of academic freedom).

Mechanisms for collaborative defence of academic freedom with US counterparts may be required. This could involve joint statements, shared legal resources, or even taking a greater share of responsibility for 바카라사이트 hosting of events or research projects that could have ramifications under H.R. 9495. That would ensure that US colleagues are not unfairly penalised for engaging in legitimate academic inquiry.

Overseas institutions may also need to consider hosting data or servers for collaborative projects, or mirroring US-based sites, to protect information that could become a point of contention under 바카라사이트 new legislation.

If academia could afford to shrug when 바카라사이트 House passed H.R. 9495 last autumn, Trump¡¯s actions since he returned to 바카라사이트 Oval Office illustrate how misplaced such complacency is. The threat posed by both 바카라사이트 legislation and 바카라사이트 actions of 바카라사이트 US administration must be proactively addressed at a global level to ensure academic freedom is actively defended.?

Caroline Ball is academic librarian at 바카라사이트 University of Derby.