[slow moe]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...5942&printer=1

PARIS (AFP) - The French public broadcasting regulator authorized an Arabic-language television station close to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim Hezbollah group to transmit programs within the European Union.

Photo
AFP/File Photo




The Al-Manar station, well known within the Arabic world, had committed itself in an agreement "not to incite hatred, violence or discrimination based on race, sex, religion or nationality," said the French Audiovisual Council.

Jewish groups had earlier urged French authorities not to grant a licence to the channel to transmit programmes in France after it had put out material criticized for perceived anti-Semitic content.

Following complaints, the audiovisual authority asked Al-Manar to submit a reasoned application to register as a broadcasting organisation.

A top French court in August warned Lebanese-based Al-Manar channel it would curtail its satellite transmissions to France if it did not commit itself to a code of professional conduct.

The State Council, France's highest administrative tribunal, asked the channel to declare its commitment to a charter of journalistic ethics.

The charter is a document agreed with the Audio-Visual Higher Council (CSA), France's broadcasting watchdog, under which the TV channel would commit itself to abide by rules prescribed by the State Council on professional conduct and programme content.

The CSA applied to have Al-Manar transmissions to France suspended because it broadcast a programme a year ago which included particularly vicious anti-Semitic themes, such as the Middle Ages blood libel myth of alleged Jewish ritual killing of children.

Counsel for the television station at the August tribunal hearing admitted Al-Manar had transmitted a programme "about which the entire management was agreed in acknowledging that it was inadmissible."

The US State Department has listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.

Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot called this month for it to be likewise placed on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations in a bid to dry up its financing from Europe.

However Bot acknowledged that there was lack of unanimity on this subject in the European Union.

Some governments make a distinction between Hezbollah as a political party with a dozen members in the Lebanese parliament and a broad programme of social works, and its militant military wing responsible for deadly attacks.

Hezbollah, "the Party of God" formed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, seeks the "liberation" of all occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem.

The latest EU terrorism list, approved April 2, includes 26 individuals and 25 organizations, including Hamas, another violent anti-Israeli group that carries out both social work and armed attacks.

The blacklist was established late in 2001 following the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Sick.

[Abu Bakr]

Great news. Al Manar is a very good TV station though it does broadcast some controversial programs.

This is a great day for free speech.

Thank you France

[Abu Bakr]

Here's their site

http://www.manartv.com/

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
Great news. Al Manar is a very good TV station though it does broadcast some controversial programs.

This is a great day for free speech.

Thank you France

good god man!

you aprove of a terrorist network being broadcast? holy hell son! dude thats ed up.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Splinter:
good god man!

you aprove of a terrorist network being broadcast? holy hell son! dude thats ed up.

Couldn't be worse than CMT.

There is nothing dangerous about terrorists -- assuming that they are -- having a TV station. It's not like you have to watch it. And it's not like you can't have other networks airing opposing messages.

The best way to prevent against the harmful effects of speech is usually by having more speech.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
Here's their site

http://www.manartv.com/

I see they have a show called Irhabioun.

A documentary series, that exposes the crimes perpetrated by the Zionist enemy against Arabs and Moslems since the usurpation of Palestine. This weekly program recalls the Zionist massacres, and brutal practices that took place on this date of the year.

I was wondering if that comes on before or after Al-Manar Assaghir?

The children's entertainment; information and amusement hour, all week days. It shows a series of programs for each age category and a variety of aims and mediums by using a group of personalities that children love. The programs are: Hello... al-Manar Assaghir, al-Manar Assaghir Magazine, Talents of al-Manar Assaghir, al-Hassoun(the Goldenfich) and al-Mohtaref assaghir.

[Spliffdaddy]

lmfao

[Abu Bakr]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I see they have a show called Irhabioun.

So you are of the opinion that there have been no massacres and horrible acts committed by Israel?

[Spliffdaddy]

I think Israel has shown enormous restraint in dealing with their terrorist neighbors.

Last time I checked there were still some Palestinians alive. If Israel were truly evil, that wouldn't be the case.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think Israel has shown enormous restraint in dealing with their terrorist neighbors.

Last time I checked there were still some Palestinians alive. If Israel were truly evil, that wouldn't be the case.

Absolutely. Israel's been far too lenient, and it's caused nothing but problems.

[Abu Bakr]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think Israel has shown enormous restraint in dealing with their terrorist neighbors.

Last time I checked there were still some Palestinians alive. If Israel were truly evil, that wouldn't be the case.

If we think like that it must be concluded that we(Palestinians) have been treating the Israelis as angels.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Perhaps you should dig a bit deeper into the history of this conflict and try to get some understanding of it.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
If we think like that it must be concluded that we(Palestinians) have been treating the Israelis as angels.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Perhaps you should dig a bit deeper into the history of this conflict and try to get some understanding of it.

Looks like another peon had to step in Logic's shoes.
Hi, I'm CreepingDeth. I'm a zionist.
Hello, you're a terrorist-sympathizer.

Any organization that sponsors terrorism and has public broadcasting is broadcasting not news but enemy propaganda.
We would we put enemy propaganda on the airwaves. That's like having a weekly Riefenstahl film showing.

God you guys are stupid. Fox is teh evil put the enemy's network is a-ok?

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think Israel has shown enormous restraint in dealing with their terrorist neighbors.

Last time I checked there were still some Palestinians alive. If Israel were truly evil, that wouldn't be the case.

So by that logic the Nazis were not truly evil?

[Spliffdaddy]

Sure, if you can show me where Jews blew themselves up on German busses 60 years ago.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sure, if you can show me where Jews blew themselves up on German busses 60 years ago.

First, genocide is inherently evil, so there is no possible justification for it by anyone, ever.

Second, yeah, there were a lot of Jewish partisans, and there are a number of accounts of their activities. Terrorism was hardly unknown to them.

Ultimately, terrorism is a red herring. It's bad (more because it's a tough habit to break) but it's not inherently evil. Just as the use of conventional military forces is bad but not inherently evil. They're just tools. (And besides which, Israel is acting in a terroristic manner. Terrorism is the use of terror to attempt to effect changes in policies or attitudes. Terrorism is not a synomym for guerrilla warfare.)

What is important is the motivation for employing force by whatever means, whether force is substantially likely to be ultimately beneficial to swiftly bringing about a broadly supported and agreeable peace, and whether any other non-forceful means at all remain that have any reasonable likelihood of success.

Generally, I'm in the 'plague on both your houses' camp in that neither side has any moral claim whatsoever at this point. I'm shamed that there are Jews who have not learned anything from the last several millennia of history, who have engineered a diaspora, who discriminate, and who vilify broad groups, often in a wholly bigoted manner. I also think that they act with far too heavy a hand. Of all the people who should know better, it should be us. I'm upset with the Palestinians that have taken their resistance, which is justified to a point, too far such that it isn't having productive results.

What I want is a unified country, with all the inhabitants equal, living peacefully, getting along, and intermixing so that at least there's no pronounced divide, with a strongly secular government. And right now neither side seems the slightest bit interested in doing anything even slightly peaceful or conciliatory. This is bringing us closer and closer to the point where it will be quite accurate to class both sides in the conflict as being evil.

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by Abu Bakr:
Great news. Al Manar is a very good TV station though it does broadcast some controversial programs.

This is a great day for free speech.

Thank you France

There is a reason why Germany and France outlaw Nazi speech and junk. This is no different. Islamafascism is just Nazi Fascism with a Muslim twist.

[sideus]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Couldn't be worse than CMT.

What is wrong with Country Music Television?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by sideus:
What is wrong with Country Music Television?

It's only for "hicks."

[sideus]

I like GAC better. CMT=MTV now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
There is a reason why Germany and France outlaw Nazi speech and junk. This is no different. Islamafascism is just Nazi Fascism with a Muslim twist.

Don't the Palestinians also use Nazi terms or lingo?

[cpt kangarooski]

The Oracle--

There is a reason why Germany and France outlaw Nazi speech and junk. This is no different.

There's a reason why we do not outlaw it. Frankly, they're wrong to do so.

sideus--

What is wrong with Country Music Television?

It's the country music part that I don't care for. That stuff is awful. Why can't we have a 24 hour punk station? (Aside from that it would probably be against the ethos, and would not sit well with the FCC)

Of course, I would never attempt to ban it; I recognize that we all have different tastes and opinions, and that sharing them openly is essential. Likewise, I doubt if I'd watch this TV if I recieved it where I live, but my personal dislike isn't a good reason at all to prevent other people who do want to see it from being unable to.

[私]

Funny how the people saying that the Hezbollah station be banned are a lot of the same people who were up in arms that Canada was even considering not letting Fox News broadcast there.

Free speech works both ways.

私

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by 私:
Funny how the people saying that the Hezbollah station be banned are a lot of the same people who were up in arms that Canada was even considering not letting Fox News broadcast there.

Free speech works both ways.

私

Fox News doesn't advocate the destruction of a people, the murder of innocents, or violence against others.

It is one thing to allow freedom of speech. Quite another to permit terrorists to operate openly.

[私]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
Fox News doesn't advocate the destruction of a people, the murder of innocents, or violence against others.

It is one thing to allow freedom of speech. Quite another to permit terrorists to operate openly.

It doesn't matter what they advocate. Speaking is not doing. This network is not terrorism. Speech should be free.

私

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
The Oracle--


There's a reason why we do not outlaw it. Frankly, they're wrong to do so.

sideus--


It's the country music part that I don't care for. That stuff is awful. Why can't we have a 24 hour punk station? (Aside from that it would probably be against the ethos, and would not sit well with the FCC)

Of course, I would never attempt to ban it; I recognize that we all have different tastes and opinions, and that sharing them openly is essential. Likewise, I doubt if I'd watch this TV if I recieved it where I live, but my personal dislike isn't a good reason at all to prevent other people who do want to see it from being unable to.

Kangarooski, your peaceful, permissive, 'live and let live' spirit and attitude may be a viable personal strategy, but it is one that would quickly prove unworkable when applied to issues of public policy.

The same way that healthy attitudes as regards smoking or getting along with others have developed by use of 1,000's of public service announcements over the years, you have to recognize the role that TV can play in planting and nurturing unhealthy attitudes and behaviors.

There is a concept referred to as moral relativism which says, "Since people and cultures disagree about morality, there are no objective moral values."

If you would agree there are some moral values that are absolutes then I would submit that terrorism is absolutely evil.
Any TV broadcast or station or network that portrays terrorism as anything but evil is wrong.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by 私:
Funny how the people saying that the Hezbollah station be banned are a lot of the same people who were up in arms that Canada was even considering not letting Fox News broadcast there.

Free speech works both ways.

私

I agree... I think Hezbollah should be free to broadcast wherever there is a market for their services. i've never watched and don't plan on it but thats my choice.

Governments should never decide what people should and should not watch.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I agree... I think Hezbollah should be free to broadcast wherever there is a market for their services. i've never watched and don't plan on it but thats my choice.

Governments should never decide what people should and should not watch.

What if it were allowed for a TV station to broadcast to NYC that Puerto Ricans were evil and glamorized those who strapped bombs to themselves and killed Puerto Ricans?

Or Manhattanites or Yankee fans or...(name any group you choose).

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What if it were allowed for a TV station to broadcast to NYC that Puerto Ricans were evil and glamorized those who strapped bombs to themselves and killed Puerto Ricans?

Or Manhattanites or Yankee fans or...(name any group you choose).

Fine with me. People who don't like it can change the channel or have their own stations competing with this one. Prohibiting such statements publicly doesn't eradicate the thought that yields them, it just drives it underground where it is harder to stay abreast of.

You'll find that this is why the Klan or the Nazis or whomever can basically say whatever they like. Their viewpoint, however much you might dislike it, is greatly protected by our civil liberties. Merely saying that someone is evil (and n.b. our discussion in another thread) and glamorizing those who kill them isn't even harmful or dangerous.

Also I'm a Sox fan, so take that, Yankees fans.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Fine with me. People who don't like it can change the channel or have their own stations competing with this one. Prohibiting such statements publicly doesn't eradicate the thought that yields them, it just drives it underground where it is harder to stay abreast of.

You'll find that this is why the Klan or the Nazis or whomever can basically say whatever they like. Their viewpoint, however much you might dislike it, is greatly protected by our civil liberties. Merely saying that someone is evil (and n.b. our discussion in another thread) and glamorizing those who kill them isn't even harmful or dangerous.

Also I'm a Sox fan, so take that, Yankees fans.

As much as I strongly support the rights of free speech, the incitement to violence or to disrupt society or the glorification of violence to ANY segments of society is NOT protected by law.

The fact is that there are prohibitions against these types of expressions and rightly so. You haven't a clue as to the dangers of what you propose. There may be the appreciation of freedom and a celebration of the nobility of the principle behind your position, (giving you the benefit of the doubt), however, it is reckless and you have NO IDEA of the damage it could bring about.

There was a similar debate going on in another thread which I'm too tired to snag for you.

I'll just say this, people criticize the Jerry Springer Show because it shows the lowest behavior and practices of people in our society. I welcome the show and think it is valuable.

I expect you might also support the broadcast on the principle that everyone should be able to watch what they want.

However, one of my reasons for liking the show is because it gives people with unhealthy or aberrant attitudes or lifestyles an opportunity to really understand how their attitudes are seen by their peers. Once they understand how the audience (and society in general) feels about them screwing their grandmother's dog I believe they are given a chance to re-examine the practice.

I support freedom of speech here on these pages for many of the obvious reasons one supports free speech, but in this case, I welcome the opportunity to expose your point of view to this community that you might get some feedback as to that POV in the matter of allowing any and every kind of speech.

Speech such as that which might be broadcast by a Hezbollah TV station to a European audience comprised of many Muslims and Jews (and others) who already are living in a heightened atmosphere of suspicion, fear and hatred could ignite a powder keg that no one would want except those who enjoy inflicting or viewing chaos and violence upon their fellow man.

Free speech is not only a right, but a responsibility.

It seems you understand only half of the equation.

I don't think you really know the dangers inherent in allowing anyone to say anything to anyone at any time.

That is the scariest thing.

BTW, ask yourself how many good, otherwise peaceful young Muslim men have died because they saw martyrdom being glorified in the Arab media, or heeded the call of the "holy men" to rush into the crucible of Iraq only to be killed. That's free speech for you.

Think of the people who have died because the M.E. media portrays the CRUSADING, OCCUPYING US TROOPS intentionally slaughtering the helpless overmatched freedom fighting al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, and the people who feel it is their duty to leave their homes and families to help protect Islam against the Crusaders go to Iraq and learn the truth about what's going on there and decide to give information to the Americans but are killed by al Qaeda for consorting with the enemy.

Truth and objectivity in journalism is very important. A news organization that hides behind the flag of journalistic rights then waves the flag of terrorism and fans the flames to create more death and destruction answers to whom?

Think about it.

[cpt kangarooski]

aberdeenwriter--

]As much as I strongly support the rights of free speech, the incitement to violence or to disrupt society or the glorification of violence to ANY segments of society is NOT protected by law.

No, only incitement is prohibitable in that list there. Of course, disrupting society is so vague, that who knows what that's supposed to be.

Let's go over Brandenburg v. Ohio:

[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said ... "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." ... A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

You haven't a clue as to the dangers of what you propose. There may be the appreciation of freedom and a celebration of the nobility of the principle behind your position, (giving you the benefit of the doubt), however, it is reckless and you have NO IDEA of the damage it could bring about.

I know that there is no likelihood of danger. But more importantly, I know for a fact that even if there is danger, it pales in comparison to the danger of restrictions on free speech.

I'll just say this, people criticize the Jerry Springer Show because it shows the lowest behavior and practices of people in our society. I welcome the show and think it is valuable.

Personally, I don't mind what it shows. Though I'm not fond of it, and don't bother watching it.

I expect you might also support the broadcast on the principle that everyone should be able to watch what they want.

A good reason.

However, one of my reasons for liking the show is because it gives people with unhealthy or aberrant attitudes or lifestyles an opportunity to really understand how their attitudes are seen by their peers. Once they understand how the audience (and society in general) feels about them screwing their grandmother's dog I believe they are given a chance to re-examine the practice.

So out of curiosity, what's wrong with Hezbollah TV? It gives us an opportunity to see how they are. This alone makes it valuable and instructive.

I don't think you really know the dangers inherent in allowing anyone to say anything to anyone at any time.

Yeah, I think I really do. There basically aren't any. Hell, little kids understand the principle -- sticks and stones and all that.

BTW, ask yourself how many good, otherwise peaceful young Muslim men have died because they saw martyrdom being glorified in the Arab media, or heeded the call of the "holy men" to rush into the crucible of Iraq only to be killed. That's free speech for you.

How many good, peaceful Americans died because they saw the Revolution being glorified in newspapers, pamphlets, books, and soapbox speeches? (though soap probably didn't come in boxes back then)

Truth and objectivity in journalism is very important.

Meh. It's a very recent phenomenon, actually. Personally I don't care much whether you have a yellow press or not.

[私]

People are responsible for their own decisions. If someone watches Hezbollah TV and decides to go kill Jews, that person, not Hezbollah TV, is responsible for that decision. People are capable of making their own rational decisions. If they choose to do something illegal, that is their choice and they should face the consequences. The only potentially mitigation factor is if they made the decision under duress (such as blackmail or hostage situations).

私

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by 私:
People are responsible for their own decisions. If someone watches Hezbollah TV and decides to go kill Jews, that person, not Hezbollah TV, is responsible for that decision. People are capable of making their own rational decisions. If they choose to do something illegal, that is their choice and they should face the consequences. The only potentially mitigation factor is if they made the decision under duress (such as blackmail or hostage situations).

私

But the media do influence others. It's all the more apparent when dealing with so many illiterate, uneducated Arabs across the region. Their minds are soft and readily molded into the suicide bombers and terrorists of tomorrow.

[CreepingDeth]

This is ridiculous.
The message of the terrorist organization Hezbollah broadcasting their propaganda in the EU?
Why?
I still don't get it.

Would we ever have brought Japanese, Italian, or German propaganda into the US? Roosevelt wouldn't let them broadcast their war message in this country. So why is the EU doing it?

Oh yeah, it's a message they can tolerate.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
But the media do influence others. It's all the more apparent when dealing with so many illiterate, uneducated Arabs across the region. Their minds are soft and readily molded into the suicide bombers and terrorists of tomorrow.

Yes. The French have very wisely imposed restrictions on the Hezbollah TV broadcasts. As long as those restrictions really remove the propaganda and the restrictions are enforced, I have no problem with Hezbollah or al Jazeera or any responsible news broadcasts.

Take Out Al Jazeera
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
Fox News | October 1, 2003

The_Iraqi Governing Council (search)_-- the national authority created to represent and empower Iraqis until new constitutional arrangements and free elections can be effected -- recently caused a stir in Arab and Western circles.

In one of its first official actions, it announced a temporary_ban on the Al Jazeera (search)_and Al Arabiya satellite television channels in Iraq.

"Censorship!" cried the networks involved and sympathetic critics. Some warned darkly that this measure confirmed fears that an American occupation of Iraq would create a new puppet authoritarian system, not a Western-style liberal democracy rooted in freedom of the press. Even the United States government and the U.S.-led_Coalition Provisional Authority (search)_felt compelled to distance themselves from the decision, although neither wanted to direct its reversal.

This American and allied attitude is preposterous. For one thing, the Governing Council's initiative was an exceedingly mild shot across the bow to the two "independent" Arab media outlets. The ban is, by its own terms, supposed to expire in two weeks' time. Even during that period, it is not altogether clear whether -- absent active measures (such as jamming) of which the Iraqi interim government is clearly incapable -- such a ban would have any practical effect on what is shown about and from inside Iraq, other than to prevent the networks' credentialed crews from covering official activities.

(It is a bit rich that self-annointed champions of international press freedoms are so incensed about this modest Iraqi action when there has been scarcely a peep of protest about the crushing of virtually all independent media in "democratic" Russia, accompanied by Vladimir Putin's increasingly brazen exploitation of the state-controlled outlets for a new cult of personality.)

More to the point, the Governing Council had ample grounds for denouncing Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Both have been steady purveyors of enemy propaganda since well before Sept. 11. In its aftermath, they have routinely transmitted calls-to-arms via tapes purporting to feature the likes of Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, under the pretext that doing so is not a nakedly hostile act of incitement against the West, in general, and the United States, in particular. Instead, ironically, they justify such actions by the almost-exclusively Western tradition of free expression, claiming to be merely covering the "news."

During a just-concluded trip to Iraq -- including visits with senior commanders, Iraqi officials and others in Baghdad, Tikrit and Mosul -- I learned firsthand of the further reasons for the Governing Council's action. It turns out that the two Arab networks have made a fetish of broadcasting murderous attacks on Americans and their Iraqi and coalition allies, often accompanied by commentary or "news analysis" that makes no effort to conceal that the speakers' sympathies lie with the perpetrators.

Al Jazeera has also been observed arriving at the scene of a roadside bombing or other attack before it occurs. While the network has claimed that this was because it had been misinformed that the attack had already taken place and innocently wound up getting to the scene first, this strains credulity. At the very least, the attackers are waiting for the sympathetic Arab TV to show up before causing their carnage, knowing that it will feature prominently on subsequent broadcasts and be picked up by other networks around the world.

It seems unlikely to be any coincidence, either, that crowds are often on hand as well. Increasingly, some on hand for the attacks erupt -- as if on command -- when the cameras are on, offering fervid denunciations of the United States, President Bush, so-called Iraqi collaborators in the occupation of an Arab country and similar, highly charged visuals.

More to the point, elected Iraqi officials and U.S. commanders advised our delegation of retired senior military officers and civilian defense experts that there is evidence that Al Jazeera is actually paying for such attacks. If confirmed, this would make the network and its associates enemy combatants and subject to appropriate responses.

For too long, the U.S. government has ignored less materially harmful forms of Arab media collaboration with our foes. (A similar charge of incitement could -- and should -- be leveled practically daily at the state-owned media of Muslim nations, including those of putatively friendly states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.)

To some extent, this has been justified by a hope that so doing would allow American officials to use these vehicles to communicate the United States' wartime public diplomacy messages to their audiences. Pursuant to this strategy, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and others have appeared from time to time on Al Jazeera's shows. (So, in fact, on occasion has this author.)

Unfortunately, these episodic, and usually fleeting, appearances do not begin to match -- let alone to counteract -- the incessant drumbeat of Muslim victimization, anti-Western vituperation and approval for acts of violence thus justified when perpetrated by terrorists. The Iraqi Governing Council is confronting the reality of this danger every day and has responded appropriately, within its limited means.

Under present wartime circumstances, though, the United States has the ability -- and, indeed, an urgent responsibility -- to take more comprehensive action against Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Unless the two networks adjust their behavior so as no longer to act as the propaganda arm of our enemies, they should be taken off the air, one way or another.

To those who will decry this as censorship, they should be reminded of President Bush's injunction shortly after we were attacked two years ago: In the War on Terror, you are either with us or with the terrorists. It would be no more sensible for us to construe the masquerading of enemy propaganda, the communication and amplification of its calls to jihad and the legitimacy that attends transmission of such messages and images via television than it would be for us to regard bin Laden's messages, or Saddam's, as mere "news."

If we are serious about this war, we need a totally revamped information policy -- replete with much more concerted and effective efforts to win the hearts and minds of people who have no reason to fear us, let alone to attack us, but are being told to do so by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. A place to start would be to rapidly start up a satellite television service of our own, capable of reaching millions of currently unserved viewers in Iraq.

In the meantime, it is imperative that enemy media be taken down if they insist on using their access to the airwaves as instruments of the war against us and our allies.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department. He is currently president of the Center for Security Policy.

[私]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
But the media do influence others. It's all the more apparent when dealing with so many illiterate, uneducated Arabs across the region. Their minds are soft and readily molded into the suicide bombers and terrorists of tomorrow.

It doesn't matter. People are responsible for their own actions and decisions. It has to be that way. Otherwise the law would be irrelevant because you could just say that someone else told you to break it. It's the same as people suing McDonalds for making them fat: ********.

Personal responsibility is a necessity in a free society.

私

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by 私:
It doesn't matter. People are responsible for their own actions and decisions. It has to be that way. Otherwise the law would be irrelevant because you could just say that someone else told you to break it. It's the same as people suing McDonalds for making them fat: ********.

Personal responsibility is a necessity in a free society.

私

But broadcasting a conflicting and dangerous view, one held by the Terrorists we fight against and claiming it okay is crazy.

[私]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
But broadcasting a conflicting and dangerous view, one held by the Terrorists we fight against and claiming it okay is crazy.

No, it's freedom of speech. The most important freedom we have.

私

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by 私:
No, it's freedom of speech. The most important freedom we have.

私

Except these are murderous bastards who would kill us if they had they chance. Their message undermines the war effort (if there was one in EU) and is a threat.

Would you let German propaganda into the US in 1943?

[私]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Except these are murderous bastards who would kill us if they had they chance. Their message undermines the war effort (if there was one in EU) and is a threat.

And the KKK aren't murderous bastards? Yet we still allow them to exist and hold rallies and promote their ideas.

Their message only undermines the war effort if it changes people's minds. There is no threat, except the threat to our freedom (which is more important than the war) represented by preventing this.

Would you let German propaganda into the US in 1943?

Yes.

私

[aberdeenwriter]

Millennium made this comment in another thread but it bears repeating here.

Originally posted by Millennium:

Last I checked, inciting violence was a crime, whether or not one used speech or religion to do it.

Free speech means that no one can punish you for speaking. But if you used that speech to commit a crime, then free speech will not save you. This is how the classic example of shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater works. Actually shouting it is not a crime, but inciting a panic is. If you can show that you did not incite a panic (for example, if there actually was a fire in the theater), then the law can't touch you, because your speech was never the crime in the first place.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by 私:
And the KKK aren't murderous bastards? Yet we still allow them to exist and hold rallies and promote their ideas.

Their message only undermines the war effort if it changes people's minds. There is no threat, except the threat to our freedom (which is more important than the war) represented by preventing this.



Yes.

私

That's not even a good analogy. The KKK is hated by the vast majority of the population and there are laws that were put in place just for them. The KKK is a group that is not regarded well.
Hezbollah is a terrorist group with a TV station that replays "Kill the Jews" over and over.
It's a news channel. It will change people's minds.

This is absolute insanity. It's like having the fascist or communist party have an official broadcast network on public TV.

Why do you think Roosevelt made the decision he did about propaganda?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
That's not even a good analogy. The KKK is hated by the vast majority of the population and there are laws that were put in place just for them. The KKK is a group that is not regarded well.

It's a perfectly good analogy. They are both spreading a message of hate and violence. The only difference you seem to be able to point out is that the KKK is not well-regarded. Do you think that Hezbollah is?

Hezbollah is a terrorist group with a TV station that replays "Kill the Jews" over and over.
It's a news channel. It will change people's minds.

It won't change people's minds, because the majority of people who watch it will be people who already believe what Hezbollah has to say. And even if it does change people's minds, so what? People have a right to believe whatever the hell they want.

This is absolute insanity. It's like having the fascist or communist party have an official broadcast network on public TV.

The insanity is that you don't see that your standpoint here is exactly the one that a fascist or communist would take. You're trying to repress dissenting opinions, the exact thing that the first amendment is there to prevent.

Why do you think Roosevelt made the decision he did about propaganda?

His intentions may have been good (or not, I really don't know), but that doesn't mean his decision was the right one. Everyone, not just the people you agree with, have the right to speak their mind.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
[BThe insanity is that you don't see that your standpoint here is exactly the one that a fascist or communist would take. You're trying to repress dissenting opinions, the exact thing that the first amendment is there to prevent.[/B]

Ouch. That'll leave a mark in the morning.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Ouch. That'll leave a mark in the morning.

Not really. Dissidents aren't the same as enemies in war.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Not really. Dissidents aren't the same as enemies in war.

I'll give you that -- now give us an actual declaration of war.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Not really. Dissidents aren't the same as enemies in war.

We're at war with a tv station? Or are we at war with Shi'ite muslims? With all muslims? With Lebanon? I don't think we're at war with any of those groups. So how is Hezbollah TV an enemy in war?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
We're at war with a tv station? Or are we at war with Shi'ite muslims? With all muslims? With Lebanon? I don't think we're at war with any of those groups. So how is Hezbollah TV an enemy in war?

The organization linked with the TV station. Is it that hard to comprehend.

War on terror>>Terrorists
Terrorists>>Hezbollah
Hezbollah has a TV Station
TV station=message
Hezbollah's message=Terrorist message
Terrorist Message=Enemy's message
Enemy's message=evil

Originally posted by Dakar:
I'll give you that -- now give us an actual declaration of war.

I'll show you boots on the ground.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
I'll show you boots on the ground.

Not good enough. If you want to curtail free speech, I want an actual piece of paper.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Not good enough. If you want to curtail free speech, I want an actual piece of paper.

Tell that to your congressman.
That way we can try people for treason, and that'd be a show.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
That way we can try people for treason, and that'd be a show.

It would be, but this administration has been notoriously behind the scenes, so I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.