I cannot believe you feel that freedom of speech should include information or viewpoints from a terrorist organization.




Well, you can certainly get sufficient information on the terrorist groups via the web - no need to broadcast it.


>>I disagree on the requirement for money to actually change hands. There are many ways to support a terrorist organization without money changing hands. Broadcasting their propaganda is one. All are wrong and subversive behavior against the U.S.
>
>"Broadcasting their propaganda is one".... <-- a very slipper slope though don't you think? If I'm against the war in Iraq and protest the war, how long before this is considered propaganda of the enemy? And quite frankly I'd kinda like a chance to hear the other side of the story, or someone else's propaganda besides ours.
>
>
>>>>>>>>How can broadcasting a TV station be aiding and abetting the enemy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Simple. Al-Manar is a propoganda outlet for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Why should we allow them the ability to spread their message in the US?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do a little research - this is no simple music channel we're talking about:
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar_TV
>>>>>>>From http://www.stopterroristmedia.org/: The long war against radical Islam is a war of ideas as much as a war of arms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm all for freedom of speech and take my rights as an American citizen very seriously. But I agree whole-heartedly with this ruling. There are NO valid reasons for allowing our enemies to spread their messages of hate and violence within our borders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This seems contradictory to me. Are you truly for freedom of speech, or only speech you don't find too objectionable? Implicit in the freedom of speech is a degree of respect for people's ability to evaluate what they hear. We aren't sheep who blindly believe whatever we hear. If some Islamic wahoo wants to make an a** of himself spouting messages of hate and violence, let him. I think I am capable of seeing through it.
>>>>>
>>>>>...which was kinda my point to begin with here. As long as what you say doesn't impose on someone else's freedom or rights, then you should be able to say it. So this guy was broadcasting things that our enemy says...well big deal! good! maybe I wanna hear it! make sure I'm not being lied to! I mean don't we blare broadcasts to cuba so the cubians know the 'truth'? I don't think it should be up to the government to decide what is harmful for me to hear.
>>>>
>>>>Victor,
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you on the free speech issues. I think there are far too many in government who would like to erode our basic civil liberties, and this is one of the most basic.
>>>>
>>>>But, in this case, I believe he is being accused of doing business with, and thereby financially supporting, a terrorist organization, a somewhat different issue. I have some strong reservations about the powers invested in our executive branch to unilaterally decide who is and who isn't a terrorist organization, but I can't quibble with classifying Hezbollah as such!
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>I guess I'll have to see everyones point here. If the guy was indeed financilly supporting a terrorist oranization then that's a seperate problem in itself. I haven't been able to find out any information on if money changing hands because of his broadcasting of this. Did he pay them for the feed? Were they paying him to rebroadcast? If either one of those two things are true, then yeah he should be stopped. If all this was being done without any $ changing hands - then I think that's a little different.