« TFT Survey | Main | Jordan's war on ideas »

June 21, 2006



called onArab leaders to rethink their approach to the jihadist movement and to consider dialogue and negotiations with it

Insanity. That's a recipe for jihadi victory. As Al Jazeera well knows. We should have had a dialog with fascists in Italy, and Nazis in Germany too, I suppose?

Jihadis cannot co-exist with the rest of the world's population. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to continue to exist. The question is wheteher they have to all be killed, before they fade away, or whether internal social pressures will ever do anything about the existance of Jihadis.


to be clear: this wasn't "al-Jazeera" - it was a caller to a live, unedited call-in show on al-Jazeera.


Thanks for the reply, Aardvark :)

and the host's follow up questions

That kinda implies that the host (Al Jazeera?) was guiding the dialogue.

Making death threats and other advocacy of violence is not protected speech, in any society. And it would be much of a stretch to make a case that openly and publicly supporting jihadi and/or terrorist movements is is tantamount to advocating violence, since such movements use violence to advance their goals.

I don't see any free speech issue here, or in the post you made about Jordan either.


Making death threats and other advocacy of violence is not protected speech, in any society

Except in free ones....see Brandenburg v. Ohio, for example. No indication that any overt "threats" were made--unlike in a lot of call-in radio talk shows in this country.



see Brandenburg v. Ohio, for example.

Ok! I did! result:

(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Game over. Thanks for the input.

the aardvark

Craig - you really don't see any free speech issue in the arrest of citizens who express sympathy with jihadist organizations, but have not been accused of any material support for such organizations? In neither the Saudi or the Jordanian cases could the speech in question be read as a direct incitement to violence or "imminent lawless action". The strongest case to be made is that their speech helps create an environment which makes such action more likely in general. But between the specific (direct incitement) and the general is that classic slippery slope... which is exactly why the ACLU and most civil liberties advocates have often found themselves defending objectionable speech that they often find personally repugnant.


Aardvark, they expressed support and praise for a mass murderer and his organization. An organization that is responsible for deaths of innocent Iraqis, every single DAY. It's not "imminent" - it's ongoing! And I absolutely do think that for high level government officials to praise a terrorist organization that is operating right across the border DOES encourage people to participate in the violence.

That's just my opinion, but I think the case could be MADE even here in the US, if something similar ever happened here. Whether it could be won or not, I don't know.


Game over for YOU , mister.

The key word is imminent.

Read what you are citing before you post.


hk, my word is ONGOING... read the rest of the commenst before YOU post, please. I already coverred that :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad