Unreal
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Access?
I followed the links provded and the guy was charged with providing access to the feed such that they could watch TV. Your wording might imply that they were provided access to allow themselves to provide content to the station.
Indeed, the canaries are dead
I suppose I’m right in assuming teh war on terror picks up where the war on drugs and the war on poverty left off.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The charge is not that they “provided access” to Al Manar broadcasts. The charge, under IEEPA, is that they took money (to the tune of over 100 grand) from Al Manar to broadcast it.
That’s “engaging in a business transaction with a designated terrorist entity”, under IEEPA. Had they been showing Al Manar without being paid by Al Manar, they’d be in the clear.
I’m vehemently skeptical of claims of the imminent destruction of the first amendment, though I’m perfectly happy with people being wary about it.
But the actual charges and the actual law don’t seem to prevent anyone from seeing Al Manar, as long as Al Manar isn’t paying the broadcaster to do it, or vice versa. If some cable operator gets Al Manar off a satellite feed and broadcasts it for money, they’re still clear under IEEPA, even though they’re making money, because that money isn’t getting to or from the Designated Terrorist Entity. (Of course, Al Manar could sue that operator for not paying them royalties, but that’s another matter; and since Al Manar is a propaganda agency, they wouldn’t do so.)