Freedom is the real capacity to choose. Some here define it only as freedom from the government. Again, if you defne it like that then Somalia, Afghanistan and similar places are the freest on earth.
The government and the long arm of the law are necessary in making real freedom effective and for that they lay rules which restrict certain freedoms but enhance others. By decreeing that everyone must drive on the right they curtail my freedom to drive on the left but it enhances everyone’s real freedom to drive, including mine. Saying the opposite is just silly.
Restricting oneself to theoretical political freedoms from government is just as silly. There are other actors out there besides the government.
The reason people probably aren’t responding to your news article is because you say one thing and then the news article says another. No one was arrested for exercising free speech, someone was arrested for having illegal ties to an organization that is on an official list of terrorist organizations here in the United States.
Because of the strange statement you make and the contradictory news article you posted I think you have an urge to open up a general debate about that specific issue. I think if so you should do it and as a community we’d be able to explore it further, but I think most posters aren’t interested in a complete aside in this thread.
It is worth noting we have certainly arrested people for giving both material and political support to the enemy in times of war. For example the leader of the German-American Bund was arrested prior to the U.S. involvement in World War II; although it was for embezzlement. We’ve also locked people up in camps who we felt might be sympathizers with the enemy (the same guy who was convicted of embezzlement was eventually put in an internment camp and deported to Germany after the war.)
That’s not really very similar to what happened with the guy in your article.
But the “ties” were that he broadcast their television station. He didn’t send them money or explosives, or give them any physical support. He just broadcast images and sounds.
Just as a quick addendum, other people broadcast streams of Al-Manar here in the United States and do not get arrested. Where it seems that Mr. Iqbal crossed the line is when he started airing it as part of his for-profit business and was essentially engaging in profit and trade with a terrorist entity. Keep in mind not only was Mq. Iqbal selling the stream to his customers he was also being paid over $20,000 a month by Al-Manar to stream their content over his satellite service.
While I don’t know what the relevant statutes are, I would not be surprised at all if this fell under the same sort of umbrella that doing business with Iraq under Hussein would have, or any other country or illegal organization that Americans are not allowed to do business with.
As your linked article shows there are First Amendment exceptions to some of these laws and the judge in the case ruled they didn’t apply here. Most every country on earth has varying relations with the rest of the world. German companies aren’t allowed to do business with certain organizations and states, same goes for French companies, Italian companies and et cetera. Obviously the list of “prohibited” varies from state to state based on a wide variety of things.
Edit to add: You should read the rest of the article you linked, sailor.
Streaming Al-Manar for pure information dissemination purposes: probably won’t get you arrested.
Streaming Al-Manar in an arrangement with Hezbollah in which you are being paid $28,000/monthly, as part of an organized recruitment drive for Hezbollah: probably will get you arrested.
There are issues of intent and financial transaction that seem to play a big element in what will get you arrested. If you read the linked article you would note that Iqbal’s supporters even point out that other people stream Al-Manar and do not get arrested.
As yet another example, if I found an Al-Qaeda recruitment video and hosted it on a website I doubt I’d get arrested. If Al-Qaeda paid me to do it and I did it to help them recruit, I can bet I’d end up arrested.
It works beautifully in theory, but not in practice.
Yes, it has to be said again, the current health care in America makes sense only to a medieval feudal lord.
Even if the point is made that it was a historical accident that business are the ones offering heath care, the reality is that big businesses now know that heath care is a great way of putting a leash on their workers and putting artificial limits to the growth of small companies that have a hell of a time affording good talent.
It is that freedom to start or move to other companies that is despised by many big companies, especially heath care companies.
That may have been the reason they choose to prosecute him rather than someone else. But it was NOT what the law he was sentenced for, simply broadcasting the opinions of Hezbollah is enough to go to jail.
Well, the problem in this case is that we have no idea whether that would have been the evidence nor whether he would have gone to jail. This is because despite having the NYCLU represent him at least as to his first amendment defense, he pled. As did at least one associate..
So he knew what his sentence would be. He did not stand up in court and swear that he simply broadcast the opinions of Hezbollah; he stood up in court and swore that he provided material supprt to Hezbollah in exchange for money.
It may be that the two of them did not want to roll the dice despite being unjustly charged; it could also be that there is more evidence than what is contained in these stories. We will never know, because they pled.
But it is misleading to say that they were innocents imprisioned for mere political speech. Possibly they were. But that is not what they said when they made the plea deal.
And the “support” he provided was the broadcasting of images and sound, not guns or bombs. Whether or not just getting money from Hezbollah was a crime in and of itself (interesting point, though not related to OP, is RECEIVING money from terrorists as illegal as GIVING money to terrorists), the crime he was sentence for was broadcasting the OPINIONS of a group of people we find objectionable.
No. The crime he pled guilty to was providing material support to hezbollah in its recruiting and money raising efforts in exchange for money.
Receiving money from terrorists for helping them recruit baby terrorists and and raise money to pay for their terrorist activities is as illegal as giving money to terrorists, yes.
To get back to the thread, Al-Manar is not banned in the Netherlands. However, they do not have a license to broadcast here so you still have to go on the internet to see it. This is as good an illustration of the cultural differences as any: just like in America, without that messy confrontation thing.
Nope, at least not in Germany … just as a wild ass example, in the US we have maybe 20 companies making 50 flavors of soup, in Germany they have about 15 companies making a few hundred flavors of soup … [hyperbole of course]
I loved shopping at the Real in Boblingen … in the meat department you could buy enough chopped beef/lamb/pork/poultry to make a single burger or enough for a party, a single dainty lamb chop, a single chicken leg to the whole lamb or chicken … and not as a special order. More kinds of sausage than you can imagine, fresh, preserved, frozen. Soups out the wazoo in every flavor imaginable in cans or in add water and cook pouches. Fresh or canned or preserved fruits and veggies - I saw hearts of palm, white asparagus, purple asparagus, celery, cabbage as canned or pickled veggies … all sorts of dairy …
To be honest, I would rather grocery shop there than pretty much anywhere in the US.
And that isn’t even getting into the butchers in Gaetringen who made his sausage fresh every morning … or the victualenmarket in Munich …
Of course, that fine, but then don’t give me the bullshit argument that speech is sacrosanct in America. In America airing Hezbolla TV is considered “supporting terrorism” so why is not the same as Germany prohibitting Nazi speech?
Of course in America you can use this argument with any group the government does not like: They are aiding America’s enemies. So it is not their speech, it is that they are aiding our enemies. It doesn’t matter if they are communists or what.
I know this is all subjective, but I really really do not think one could possibly claim that, for example, the people of Little Trumpington-on-the-Marsh are as similar to the people of Tirana, as the people in Norwalk are to those in Montgomery.
Statements like this make me scratch my head. Yes, the US is diverse, but in Europe it’s not just a language, it’s thousands of years of culture and history.
Your argument is certainly flawed. According to the tax foundation, the top 1% of tax payers payed 39.9% of all federal income taxes, while earning 22.1% of the gross income.* The current American Federal government spends the majority of its money on the lowest earners, due to a very pro-poor system. Clearly this example contradicts your assertion that taxes are offset by benefits.
Secondly, any power the government has is “legal” and absolute if you are unwilling to go against the law. A lower tax system, with free market, has no “absolutes” in its power.
Certainly all systems have corruption, “unfairness”, and abuses. Yet America with some of the lower taxes, and highest level of economic freedom, is consistently highly ranked by freedomhouse.org in its annual report. I would argue that economic is the largest, if not the only type of freedom that truly exist. How do I have the right to how something is used, without the ownership of said thing?
Like I said I don’t know the statute involved because none of the articles listed referenced them in a way that I could easily check. If you know for a fact that simply repeating Hezbollah opinions is a criminal act please link me the statute, I’ve been interested in reading it since I was first made aware of this news item in this thread.