Free Expression for some but not for others?

The legislation, if passed, will label as terrorists those satellite providers that “knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as specially designated global terrorists” under U.S. law. [full story here]

Someone who made a lot of sense once said,

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

Where does this insanity end?  Once this is allowed to be applied to the satellite providers, how soon before it is extended to internet service providers and broadcast radio?  We may disagree with what they say, but when we allow government to silence them you know we’re next.

It may already be too late.

“I am a human being and human beings make mistakes,” Dratel said on behalf of Iqbal, who owned a small satellite television company, HDTV Ltd.

Dratel was recently sentenced to five years for marketing the Hezbollah television channel Al Manar to US cable TV customers.

I guess its ok since its speech we don’t like right?  Or, just like the terrorists in pink bandannas “bashing back” against a church, they’re just exercising their freedom of expression so its ok.  Those nasty church goers, they have it coming right?

whoops!  Am I bad… that’s China.  It could never happen here…


  1. This is officially awesome.

    Veritas Vincit is using the words of Noam Chomsky, to defend Hezboallah, from a Bush-era prosecution (remember, the defendent was tried and pled guilty in 2008).

    Satire has been rendered irrelevant.

  2. Veritas Vincit says

    And your point is? I am well aware of whom I quote and of whom I am defending. Unless the content of their broadcasts actually breaks the law, they are still entitled to freedom of expression are they not?

  3. Then why not mention Noam by name? Afraid you’ll dilute your conservative cred?

    “Unless the content of their broadcasts actually breaks the law…”

    Which it has, on numerous occasions – including incitement to violence (which is NOT protected speech). Check out – specifically recordings of Hezboallah and Hamas broadcasts.

    “…they are still entitled to freedom of expression are they not?”

    You know, you’re right. We also should should grant a posthumous pardon to Axis Sally and retroactively un-execute Lord Haw-Haw.

    But, still, if the #1 Conservative Blog in Arizona wants to go on record as defending Hezboallah, that’s your call.

  4. Veritas Vincit says

    I am not defending Hezboallah, and I pretty much lothe what they represent, but I am defending their right to free speech.

  5. And here’s what you’re defending:

    “Al-Manar’s programming director, Sheikh Nasir al-Akhdar, has said that the station’s goals are to “wage psychological warfare” and “promote the Islamic resistance.”

    “According to Al Manar’s news director, Hassan Fadlallah… ‘We’re not looking to interview Sharon,’ Fadlallah said. ‘We want to get close to him in order to kill him.'”

    This is incitement to violence by a foreign power. Want to guess how much of that is not protected by the 1st Amendment?

  6. Veritas Vincit says

    Re-read what I said that you missed in my posting #4 … “I am defending their right to free speech.”

    I said nothing about incitement to violence.

    Nice non-sequitur however.

  7. It’s all quite sequitorial.

    The speech of Al-Manar is incitement to violence, which is not protected speech (except by you, of course), so this is not a 1st Amendment issue, and the government prosecution is valid, and a threat to no one (except Hezbollah, of course).

  8. And you never said why you didn’t attribute the quote to Noam Chomsky in the original post.

  9. Kenny Jacobs says

    So the “V” plagiarized something he didn’t understand? Satire may still have a fighting chance!

  10. Veritas Vincit says

    Sit down Kenny… I’ve read Noam and, that quote is a favorite of mine. Read my bio.

    I simply leave it to the reader to either be educated or not.

Leave a Reply to The Klute Cancel reply