Does Support for Free Speech Mean Subsidizing Destructive Hate Speech? 
By Robert Maynard

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of discussion about whether Burlington Telecon should be carrying Al-Jazeera. We here at True North, along with a new Vermont group called The Defenders Council of Vermont http://www.defenderscouncilvt.com/index.shtml have opposed carrying AJ on Vermont stations. The response of those who do support AJ has been predictable. In a letter to the editor posted in this edition a listener from Burlington compared us to the old Soviet Politburo and KGB simply for opposing Al-Jazeera. Besides the simple fact that this is an exercise in childish name calling rather than engaging in substantive debate, it is an argument which rests on a faulty premise. That premise is that this is somehow a free speech issue and to oppose the airing of Al-Jazeera is to oppose the constitutional right to free speech.

The notion that the constitutionally protected right to free speech entitles one to have their views subsidized on a taxpayer supported media outlet is absolutely absurd. This makes about as much sense as claiming that the right to bear arms entitles one to have arms provided to him at other people’s expense. There is no right which would obligate others to subsidize the person claiming that right. We only have the right not to have government interfere with our speech. Furthermore, even if this is a free speech issue, which it clearly is not, such constitutional protections apply only to American citizens not a foreign owned media outlet.

The real issue here is whether the Burlington taxpayers should be forced to subsidize a media outlet widely seen as a propaganda mouthpiece for terrorists and dictatorships. First of all was the connection to the former dictatorship of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. 

The following is an excerpt from a transcript of a DVD produced by Accuracy in Media entitled "Terror Television: The Rise of Al-Jazeera and the Hate America Media:

Uday Hussein recalled that Mohammed Jassem Al-ali had told him that "Al Jazeera is your channel."

Al-Ali was sacked in 2003, though, when Britain's Sunday Times said documents discovered in Iraq showed that Iraqi agents had been working for al-Jazeera, and that Al-ali had been personally targeted by Iraqi intelligence. But after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, U.S. officials say Al-Jazeera continued to work hand-in-glove with the terrorists in Iraq, including the remnants of the regime. The new Iraqi government banned the channel, saying it was a "mouthpiece of terrorist and criminal groups" and that its coverage served to justify kidnappings and killings.

Why has the war in Iraq been so difficult? One reason is that U.S. officials did not realize how damaging Al-Jazeera would be. An NBC News report by Lisa Myers noted that Saudi terrorists captured in Iraq said they came to Iraq to kill Americans "because of pictures on Arab television network Al-Jazeera."

(Video of captured terrorists saying they came to Iraq to kill Americans because of what they saw on Al-Jazeera and other channels).

One Al-Jazeera employee, Sami Al Haj, was captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan and sent to the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Tyseer Alouni, who ran the channel's bureau in Kabul, Afghanistan, was arrested, tried and convicted in Spain, on charges of being an agent of al Qaeda. When Alouni was sentenced to seven years in prison, an al Qaeda Internet broadcast expressed solidarity with him and attacked the "Crusader Infidel Spanish court."

There is a lot more information out there which points out the problems with Al-Jazeera and anyone who wants to find out more can go to AIM’s site: http://www.stopaljazeera.org/terror_television_trailer.html

We are about to deploy more of our on National Guard troops to the battlefield, do we really want to be subsidizing a media outlet which aids the enemy they will be facing?
 

Robert Maynard is the Editor of the True North website and an advisory board member of the Defenders Council of Vermont.