Test Case

I've mentioned before that al Manar, so-called "Hezbollah TV," is outlawed in the US as a "terrorist entity." If you could see clips from the thing you'd realize that this is far more than just news with Hezbollah's perspective -- it is propaganda of the crudest and most vile sort imaginable. And the point of the propaganda isn't lost in translation, either: we're evil, the Israelis are evil, and violence is more than justified, it is often glorious.

But the prosecution of a New York man for attempting to get around the law and provide the station does make the point clear -- this law is quite obviously a prohibition against speech.

Is the speech a direct enough incitement to violence that it can (and should) be banned?

To me what the ACLU has to say on this is just about irrelevant. We need thoughtful commentary on these issues in time of war, but the ACLU has repeatedly proven they're incapable of being the voice providing that commentary: they just knee jerk on these questions. We need people who've thought deeply about free speech and it's legitimate limitations who are willing to concede that there are legitimate limitations. I've yet to hear the ACLU come across a single security provision or response to the situation they haven't automatically rejected or suggested an acceptable alternative to.

Update: As if the fact that they call the guy an "entrepenuer" weren't enough to clue you in as to whose side the Times is taking on this, check this out:

Mr. Iqbal’s lawyer, Mustapha Ndanusa, said his client, who came to the United States from Pakistan, is a compassionate man, and at one point offered shelter in his house to a homeless woman.

"He has been very generous in the community," Mr. Ndanusa said outside court. "He’s a fun-loving guy."

Another spokesman for Mr. Iqbal called the government’s charges ridiculous. "It’s like the government of Iran saying we’re going to ban The New York Times because we think of it as a terrorist outfit," the spokesman, Farhan Memon, said before the hearing. “Or China trying to ban CNN.”

Yeah, nice try on the analogy, there pal, but that would be a dictatorship without a generally free press banning responsible news agencies. (And despite the hypothetical phrasing there, guess what? You can't get the Times in Iran or CNN in China if you're a member of the general public, thank you very much.) This is a country with a free press banning a single outlet which is anything but a responsible "news" outlet. (But, hey, as long as he's "fun loving.")

Well, sure, he's selling a satellite package that includes a network that glorifies, even encourages, people to go out and become suicide bombers, but let's keep some perspective here:

Melinda Edwards, who lives across the street, said Mr. Iqbal would use his snow blower to clear her driveway after winter storms.

Frankly I'd rather read quotes from the ACLU.

Comments

[Gordon Mitchell]

Cori says: "We need thoughtful commentary on these issues in time of war."

Point taken. But the commentary has several levels. A key fulcrum for the pro-censorship position is the assumption that the debate is being conducted in the context of a war.

Prior question: is it appropriate to operate on a permanent war footing in the current security environment? James Fallows says that we should "declare victory" and end the "war on terror," then get on with the difficult task of pursuing security in a stressful international environment.

Cori, what do you think of Fallows' arguments (which are culled from interviews with a host of hard-line counter-terrorism experts)?

[vnjagvet]

Sometimes, I wonder if having the availability to see al Jazeera (complete with translations of all of its excessive zealotry) might not be a good antidote to the argument that we are up against nothing more than a few nuts out there.

It seems to me it might be a wake up call for many.

[dauber]

Gordon, I think I can barely keep up with the newsweeklies. I saw that piece, I bought the mag, but right now it's in a big stack, so it's a little hard for me to evaluate what's in that piece per se. As a general proposition, I think you know I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "it's not really a war" side of the house.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル