Free speech takes a hit ... OK?

The Washington Post notes that the State Department has removed Al-Manar, "one of the most popular television networks in the Arabic-speaking world," because it has been designated as a supporter of terrorism (because it is run by Hezbollah and is militantly anti-Israeli). It has been placed on the Terrorist Exclusion List because of what the State Department describes as "incitement of terrorist activity." What a Terrorist Exclusion List designation means is that "foreign nationals who work for the network or provide it any support can be barred from the United States." But my favorite bit in this article is the State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher's insistence that "It's not a question of freedom of speech ... It's a question of incitement of violence." Well, actually, in legal terms incitement to violence is a pretty high standard for the government to prove. An inciter has to pretty much be jumping up and down in front a rabid mob outside the White House, shouting "Let's burn the place right now!" before he meets that legal standard. At least that's what the U.S. Supreme Court case ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Anyhoo, that's still not the point. Maybe Al-Manar should be banned. It was banned in France -- though the current U.S. administration could never use a French precendent as a rationale for anything. Maybe they should. Hell, maybe I'd ban a channel like Al-Manar (I'd have to check it out first to make sure). So the U.S. State Department is banning it. Fair enough (maybe). They just shouldn't try and argue that it's not a question of freedom of speech: it certainly is! But you know, sometimes you do have to ban certain types of speech, for the greater good, and you have to be able to admit that that's what you're doing. That's why some types of speech are restricted by international law (e.g., racist propaganda -- see the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination). The U.S. bans obscene speech and child pornography; it's not terrible to argue that we need to ban incitement to racial hatred (and terrorism). Just be honest about what you're doing!

Actually, my real favorite bit is where the Post quotes Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News, a newspaper in Dearborn, Mich. Siblani, who points out that al-Manar is popular in this country in part because of its strong support for "resistance against Israeli occupation," expresses his frustration with the decision thus: "I disagree with the State Department that it incites violence," he said. "By that standard, they should shut Fox News for inciting violence against Muslims."

Ban Fox? Whaddaya think?