Arabs reject U.S. crackdown on Arab satellite TV

And American still wonder why we are suspicious about any thing American?

because Americans seem to have two set of values, One for them and one for Arabs. American are free to elect their leaders but Arabs are not. American eligible for free speech but Arabs are not.

I do know why we bother our selves......

This certainly should render Hillary as a shame-faced hypocrite. No wonder China rebuffed her.

As an aside, Italy's Northern League may be less rabidly racist than the US Congress, because that's what it boils down to.

I wonder whether the term "Specially Designated Global Terrorists " has any other impact — for instance in describing legitimate targets for military attacks or assassination, since the US is engaged in a war on terror after all. In other words, if this bill passes, would the US find itself either:

- legally able to strike persons or institutions that fit the criteria

- more generally, perhaps even legally OBLIGED to take lesser action, such as boycott, trade sanctions, banking or financial freezes, etc...

Basically what I don't get is the potential impact of this legislation.

Also, say al-Manar incites violence against Israel but not the US. Will the legislation only cover anti-American incitement, or incitement to violence more generally?

Somewhat disigenuous as I have no doubt Mr. Lynch is well aware of the situation in the Arab World. Outside of Israel, (let the hate fest begin) there isn't a free press for the most part in the Middle East.

The media is either directly controlled by governments or indirectly and are complicit in pushing a government line. So essentially all you have is the various regimes talking good about themselves and their allies and heaping scorn on regional adversaries. The fact that the News and other shows are better packaged with good production values, such as at Al Jazeera, paid for by Government of Qatar last I heard, doesn't alter the true character of the Arab Press.

The steady stream of Anti-Americanism should be cause for US concern. Since it is largely being pushed by governments or quasi governments such as Hizbollah and Hamas, the US should not be shy in protecting US interests challenging those entities or holding responsible parties to account.

There is no hypocrisy here if the US should decide to hold people to account, hate speech is not generally accorded much protection, and certainly not given an absolute right under freedom of speech laws anywhere in the democratic world. should the US start create consequences as many seem to think on 1rt impulse. No small amount of intellectual dishonesty by Mr. Lynch framing this this as a freedom of the press/speech issue in a part of the world where there is precious little of said freedoms.

How quaint that Congress wants to protect our delicate ears from criticism (how many of these stations broadcast in English?) while we assist in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. How long until U.S. officials avoid travel to Europe because of fear of arrest and prosecution?

The inability of American society to face and deal realistically with our challenges will lead to at least decline, and perhaps, collapse.

We're talking big business here.

Hizballah's al-Manar carries programing and commercials in addition to its propaganda and hate speech.

So too does HAMAS' al-Aqsa TV. Anyone remember Farfur the Jihadist mouse?

FCC regulations prohibit the broadcast of certain speech and imagry and content provides and distributors are held to those standards.

Let's be honest here, we're not talking about free speech. The US isn't blocking the distribution of news stations such as al-Jazeera or al-Arabia, two key news stations in the region.

They're blocking the distribution of content created by terrorist groups. Sorry if that's a word that offends, but that's the truth of the matter. HAMAS is an organization with a genocidal goal at the heart of its political philosophy. It uses and promotes suicide bomber attacks against civilians.

Rather than glorify the Arab League's stand on free speech (an oxymoron in its own right), Prof. Lynch should hold these groups and the A-L up to the standard of equal rights and denigrate them for advocating violence, discrimination, and hate speech.

Whether this a matter of the media, or a matter concerning free speech; irrespective, one is wondering if this American request for a crackdown on Arab satellite stations, is part of the Washington administration's practice of public diplomacy?.

If it is, then a sincerely wish President Obama the best of luck in promoting the USA, in the Arab Middle East. If not however, then I would give the friendly advice to the Administration, to forget about the the question of public diplomacy, and save on the American tax-payer's money, after all, by bother when you can go for the jugular at the cheapest possible cost?
khairi janbek.paris/france

Hitler had to say as well.

Indeed, one doesn't see too much programing from the neo-Nazi party of prime-time television, either on the mainstream TV channels or even cable. Indeed, commentary from hate groups is universally denied on the airwaves, and even when such groups come out to 'play', their hate filled messages are usually held in the background while the News commentators utter their condemnations.

But lets forget about going as far as the neo-Nazi party. A few years ago, WFAN Radio broadcaster Don Imus made some indelicate comments about a women's college basketball team, he was driven from the airwaves and repeatedly condemned for his racial comments, despite the fact that his contract required him to be 'provocative', and among Mr. Imus' defense arguments was that he was making satire and ironic commentary which was 'protected' speech. Too bad, so long, you're out of here.

Let's take a look at HAMAS and Hizballah programming. HAMAS regularly broadcast children television shows promoting Jihad (the violent kind, just so we're clear).

It's Friday preachers regularly denigrate Jews with racial epitaths and call for holy wars.

Hizballah meanwhile, broadcasts mini-series promoting the anti-Semitic blood libel claim among other such programming excellence.

This is what you and Mark Lynch are defending.

You're not defending the showing of 'bodies in Gaza. Afterall, that can be seen not only on domestic television, but from foreign producers and news sources . . . including Arab ones. So sorry about the idea that there's a cover up operation going on.

As for your so-called double-standard, well, there's a slight difference between what HAMAS and Hizballah are peddling.

You see, these groups arent' the sisters of charity. They are actaully out there in the world committing the violence that they are preaching about.

When HAMAS college students put up an exhibit at Bir Zeit university in the West Bank several years ago, they not only glorified the Koranic phrases that mentioned how the rocks and trees will call the 'faithful' over to them saying "There is a Jew hiding behind me, come here and kill him". The exhibit also held a 3-D diarama of the suicide bombing of the Sbarro's Pizzaria in Israel, complete with mock ups of severed limbs and ripped apart baby carraiges (bloody baby included).

This is why Hizballah and HAMAS are labelled terrorist organizations.

Sorry to say that criminal entities, which is what a terrorist organization actually is, does not receive the same rights and freedoms as does the average Joe.

Hollywood, or Bollywood, or Turkey's movie industry or even al-Jazeera are not.

what Mr. Lynch means when he says [this bill is] "grandstanding which pleases domestic audiences while hurting American interests in the Arab world."

What 'domestic' audience are we talking about? Are you refering to a certain [untouchable] lobby?

Anyways, how is this measure any different from the tactics of Public Advocacy groups like 'Media Matters' that petition businesses to stop advertising during controversial Conservative talkshows on CNN or Fox?

Although, I guess one could make the case the boycotts and petitions ARE substantively different from coercive sanctions taken by governments who punish corporations that do business with their enemies.

Still, I'd challenge any member of Congress or any of the lobbies pushing this bill to provide A SINGLE CASE in which a terrorist said the thing that pushed him to kill Americans was a TV broadcast that he or she watched.

That's why I ultimately agree with Marc. It's pointless grand-standiing.

was against HAMAS and Hizballah.

with the cheney government came the neo nazi government. while he got rich on his terror scares he took away freedoms and put fear into anyone who would say anything against his policies. now, the rest of his party and the democrats conservatives have to hide behind these policies to promote more money in their pockets. its all about money power and discrimination in the usa today. now the free speech of the world needs to be reinforced and the usa should be blocked from any actions against any other country including iran and north korea. the world needs to sanction the usa from interfering in any country that doesnt succumb to its demands.

From Russia Today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4_F9KSeqo

The wording in the law was so broad---basically the only news allowed by this law would be pro-Israel, pro-America propaganda.

Absolutely ridiculous.