August 07, 2004

No first amendmet rights for Iraq. National security or censorship? I wonder what the US would be like if the government could shut down the Washington Post when they don't like what it says.
posted by entertainer 19 years ago
  • I wonder what the US would^H^H^H^Hill be like if^H^Hwhen the government could^H^H^H^Han shut down the Washington Post when they don't like what it says.
  • Why is this a link to some guy's blog?
  • Many of the middle eastern bloggers who approve of the US having attacked Saddam Hussein are of the opinion that Al Jazeera supports the terrorists and that their vehement rants against the US stir incite more attacks. With the amount of trouble there's been in Iraq the last week or two, it may be that the Iraqi government felt they had to shut them down to reduce the number of attacks they were facing. There may be some basis for thinking that they support anti-western terrorists. They been the ones given bin Laden tapes since the 9/11 attacks and also those from other terrorist groups. And, note that they did not shut down the whole shebang - just the Iraq office and just for a month.
  • I thought I'd copied the CNN link (it's in the post, if you'd just look). But anyway, isn't the reopening conditional? Something about Al-Jazeera revising their editorial policies. I'll be interested to see what happens in a month.
  • Or it might have something to do with this: "Doctors in Falluja say more than 700 people have died in the fighting. The US military says they are mainly "rebels", but Aljazeera, with teams inside the town,
  • path, is there any solid basis for statements like "vehement rants against the US"? As far as I'm aware, the most Aljazeera can be accused of is slanting their coverage away from positive portrayals of the US presence in Iraq. Pretty much every balanced opinion I've come across says that it's simply an independdent Arab voice, which manages to cover a lot of stories not available to the western media. The suggestion that it "incites" the terrorists is a desperately weak one, especially if it's being used as a justification for closing down its Iraq operations. Is there any evidence of direct incitement? Or are they simply annoyed at negative stories appearing? Lawyers said they were given a document stating Aljazeera has to promise to change its policy in terms of covering Iraq, if they want the office to be re-opened after the one-month punishment. Aljazeera lawyers in Baghdad refused to sign the document. There is simply no way that's right, surely? It's a roughly similar media policy to Zimbabwe. And it's disgusting.
  • Govern,ments which close down news organizations or go after reporters are repressive governments. Period.
  • "Govern,ments which close down news organizations or go after reporters are repressive governments. Period." Agreed.
  • Govern,ments which close down news organizations or go after reporters are repressive governments. Period. That's so easy to say when it's not your family and friends who are over there right now, isn't it? If shutting down al Jazeera for a month helps simmer things down in terms of violence, I could care less what people like you think about so-called "repressive governments." Notice that you said nothing about the previous government, which would put people through plastic shredders for lesser offenses. And remember that the right to free speech ends when it could put other people in danger. In elementary school, they taught you that bit about yelling fire in a crowded theater, didn't they? I spent more than a week on vacation without a computer, I come back to Monkeyfilter and already I'm disgusted. For fuck's sake, get a grip, people.
  • Notice that you said nothing about the previous government, which would put people through plastic shredders for lesser offenses. The plastic shredders thing is bullshit
  • de Cartabas, I am sorry if your family has suffered, and that you have been computer-deprived. But the whereabouts of my family or anyone else's really have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a government's closing down news oraganizations is a repressive act. Or not. The allegation that Hussein put people through a paper shredder has been discredited.
  • And for the record, freedom of speech is different from freedom of the press. They serve different functions. Having a free press can help to stop a repressive government from doing some of the things Hussein did. And I actually have quite a few family members in the military, all over the world -- including both of my brothers.
  • Since I'm a complete dweeb, I've managed to lose 2 lists of Iraqi blogs. I had even checked the archives, since the main topic of discussion at this point is the fighting that's going on now with insurgents. And, I'm way too tired to redo the research, so these are the blogs I read. Some hate our interference and some like it. Most are Iraqi, but there are also people from Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Libya, plus other links on the sidebars of these pages: http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/ http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/ http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ http://lonehighlander.blogspot.com/ http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/ http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/ http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/ http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/ http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://arabstreet.blogspot.com/ http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ http://muttawa.blogspot.com/ It's difficult to search for al Jazeera, since the English spelling varies from blogger to blogger. And, I'm way to tired to deal with html tags (since I mostly lose) so I'll have to ask you to do the research yourselves. If you're really interested.
  • And remember that the right to free speech ends when it could put other people in danger. In elementary school, they taught you that bit about yelling fire in a crowded theater, didn't they? Yes, I'm sure we're all quite familiar with the concept, although please, do continue to be patronising. In fact, seeing as you brought it up, let's have a look at the old "Fire in a theatre" thing. "...Over the past several years I have assembled a collection of instances—cases, speeches, arguments—in which proponents of censorship have maintained that the expression at issue is "just like" or "equivalent to" falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater and ought to be banned, "just as" shouting "Fire!" ought to be banned. The analogy is generally invoked, often with self-satisfaction, as an absolute argument-stopper..." (A Google cahce, unfortunatley, as bugmenot doesn't work for The Atlantic.) It's really not as broad or as useful an analogy as people often think. Also, I couldn't help noticing that you omitted the part about the shout of "fire" being false. There is no law against shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is, as it happens, a fire. One would hope that it would be done in a calm manner, and that the shouter may also shout out clear and concise information about the locations of the emergency exits. But I hope you'd agree that, however it's done, such a truthful shout of "fire" lies more in the realm of 'moral duty' than 'illegal act'. Furthermore, a simple glance at the world around you should be sufficient to demonstrate that the right to free speech does not end whenever it could put someone else in danger. It's that word "could" which is the problem, and the extreme looseness with which it can be applied. Beyond this, you'll notice that even in John Stuart Mill's original formulation of the point in On Liberty (involving opinions about corn-dealers and an excited mob), he makes a distinction between the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. In this formulation, which can also be criticised in a manner similar to the "Fire!" analogy, he states clearly that the press should go "unmolested". So even in the terms you state, freedom of speech and freedom of the press (as entertainer pointed out) are different things, and have different guiding principles. Compare, for example, the case of Annie Jacobsen. The "fire in a theatre" analogy might, today, be more aptly expressed as falsely shouting "terrorist!" on a crowded plane. Had Annie Jacobsen done so, causing panic, harm, or even just a delay to the flight, one might well expect her to have some form of run-in with the law. However, she instead wrote an article about it - and while she faced a bucketload of criticism, I don't recall anybody suggesting that she should have been banned from writing it. She was free to do so, just as we were free to write that she was either a good citizen or a paranoid racist, according to our own opinion. So, to bring it back to the case in hand - the banning of Aljazeera.... (continues)
  • (And we're back.) ....The freedom of the press is of paramount importance in any civil society, especially a democracy. The notion of Aljazeera "inciting" violence is a partisan opinion, one that is singularly lacking in evidence. Furthermore, just as the shout of "fire" is permissable when true, the remote possibility that factually accurate reporting from Aljazeera may incite violence does not justify the action of shutting it down. The shutting down was done in an extra-legal manner ("Iraqi police officers arrived in the early evening at the Baghdad office to implement the closure decision. The station's lawyers said police officers did not carry an order from a court as the country's law requires in such a case. Instead, the police had an order from the interior ministry addressed "to whom it may concern", ordering the closure."). And the ban was not merely a temporary act to allow things to "simmer down" - it was explicitly stated that it would only be permitted to re-open if it changed its editorial policy. And, seriously, do you honestly believe that shutting down a TV station will calm the violence? Will decrease resentment of the Allawi administration? Will do anything except further anger and alienate many Iraqis? Surely, that's nonsense.
  • I think I would feel much better about having an opinion on this issue if I knew Arabic and could watch Aljazeera to decide for myself what their coverage has been aiming at. I don't trust the US gov't's claims farther than I can throw the capitol building, but if (as someone mentions above) Iraqi bloggers have been saying that Aljazeera has been making things worse, that's another story. But then again, we do need something to counter balance Fox News - do you think Aljazeera will ever be available in English, if only in subtitles? I think I would most want to sit and watch Fox and Aljazeera in tandem and try to decide for myself where the truth lies.
  • You could always try try Control Room for one view, jb.