Donna Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union said she is “deeply troubled” that a television distributor is being prosecuted for the content of a broadcaster. Such a prosecution, she said, “raises serious First Amendment concerns.” She said she thinks that the law under which Iqbal has been charged has a First Amendment exception for news communications.
Ah, yes the "First Amendment exception....." The ACLU could not bring itself to refer to what we are dealing with as a "war" since it does not fit the dictionary defintion of war that so many decry as proof we are not in one. Yet, it seems they define "news" a little bit looser.
Would we all idly sit back and enjoy a Best of Leni Riefenstahl News Show or would we view it for what it was?
From Stop The ACLU:
Yesterday Stop The ACLU reported about a New Yorker being arrested for broadcasting Hizbollah T.V.
Iqbal has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the statement said. Federal authorities searched HDTV’s Brooklyn office and Iqbal’s Staten Island home, where Iqbal was suspected of maintaining satellite dishes, the statement said.
The U.S. Treasury Department froze U.S. assets of al-Manar in March, saying it supported fund-raising and recruitment activities of Hizbollah, a Shiite Muslim group backed by Syria and Iran that has been at war with Israel in southern Lebanon. Source
One of our contributors made a bold prediction that the ACLU couldn’t be far behind. Well, it looks like his magic 8 ball is leaning to “very likely.”
Donna Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union said she is “deeply troubled” that a television distributor is being prosecuted for the content of a broadcaster. Such a prosecution, she said, “raises serious First Amendment concerns.” She said she thinks that the law under which Iqbal has been charged has a First Amendment exception for news communications. Washington Post
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.
There is no other purpose but to incite violence in broadcasting this terror propaganda. It is the only media network we have declared a terrorist organization. They are filled with hate, racism, and definitely promote violence, jihad, and terrorism. If you think this is protected free speech you live in la la land. It most definitely incites violence to the point it should be banned.
Michelle Malkin vents about this at Hot Air.
She also has all kinds of information about this up at her site.
