Al-Quds al-Arabi reports that a Saudi citizen has been arrested for calling in to the al-Jazeera live call-in show Minbar al-Jazeera discussing the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Quds didn't report what he said, so I went to the transcript to find out. Right away, I noticed that he gave his full name, making it pretty easy for the Saudi police to track him down. He mourned Zarqawi's death and claimed eventual victory for Islam based on the promise of the Quran. But most of his remarks, and the host's follow up questions, called on Arab leaders to rethink their approach to the jihadist movement and to consider dialogue and negotiations with it - because their current approach hurt them and their people more than it hurt the ideas of the jihad. I didn't see anything in his remarks which would constitute a call to violence or a direct threat to the Saudi state, but he was clearly sympathetic to the jihadist movement.
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.
Posted by: Craig | June 21, 2006 at 01:10 PM
to be clear: this wasn't "al-Jazeera" - it was a caller to a live, unedited call-in show on al-Jazeera.
Posted by: aardvark | June 21, 2006 at 01:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Craig | June 21, 2006 at 08:26 PM
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.
Posted by: hk | June 23, 2006 at 02:20 PM
hk,
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.
Posted by: Craig | June 24, 2006 at 02:00 AM
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.
Posted by: the aardvark | June 24, 2006 at 07:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Craig | June 24, 2006 at 08:58 PM
Game over for YOU , mister.
The key word is imminent.
Read what you are citing before you post.
Posted by: hk | June 25, 2006 at 02:49 AM
hk, my word is ONGOING... read the rest of the commenst before YOU post, please. I already coverred that :)
Posted by: Craig | June 25, 2006 at 12:00 PM