Al-Jazeera, the First Amendment, and Security Professionals (Propaganda is "protected speech"?)

SecurityFocus ^ | 04/22/2003 | Scott Granneman

[Jay D. Dyson]

Al-Jazeera is Now on the Air...Maybe Not

Since that moment - just a few weeks ago at the time of this writing - Al-Jazeera has faced quite a struggle. Its DNS was hijacked, so that visitors to the Web site were redirected to a Web page featuring an American flag and the words "Let Freedom Ring!" It was knocked offline due to a denial of service attack. Its inital hosting company, DataPipe, dropped the site, forcing it to move to Akamai. Finally, Akamai ended its hosting contract with Al-Jazeera, without offering a clear explanation. Since then, the news site is back on the Internet, providing its useful perspective on events in the Middle East.

The events above beg for some thoughtful evaluation. As security professionals, we should be concerned; as citizens, we should be troubled. If your response to Al-Jazeera's problems run along the lines of, "Well, they had it coming to them - they're anti-American," then I ask you to think about that statement. First, Al-Jazeera's perspective is a bit more nuanced that simple "anti-Americanism". To know this, however, you'd have to have access to their Web site.

Further, as security professional we need to realize what the takedown of a news site could mean. What if the "other side" wanted to keep the Middle East from hearing our country's point of view, and you were tasked with protecting the Web sites under your control against DoS? What if you heard, "Fox had it coming to them - after all, they're anti-Arab." Would you then be troubled by a site takedown? Or, as is more likely, what if your company's competitors used the same rational to justify knocking your site offline?

[Jay D. Dyson]

My take: Al Jazeera is not a "news agency," it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of Arab dictators. That its "reporting" consisted of little more than towing Baghdad Bob's delusions is proof enough of that.

Mind you, I do not believe that sites should be knocked off the 'net simply because they espouse unpopular views, but let's call a spade a spade here.

Al Jazeera's "useful persepctive"?? More like "Useful Idiot's perspective"...

[Stone Mountain]

My take: Al Jazeera is not a "news agency," it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of Arab dictators. That its "reporting" consisted of little more than towing Baghdad Bob's delusions is proof enough of that.

Al Jazeera is certainly a news agency. They are clearly biased, but many other news agencies are as well.

Al Jazeera's "useful persepctive"?? More like "Useful Idiot's perspective"...

Call it what you want, but it is very useful. Even if you belive that it is complete bunk, a lot of people rely on Al Jazeera for their version of the news. Knowing what they are thinking is important should we ever wish to interact with them. The essay made good sense to me.

[Pyrion]

My simple answer would be "I certainly hope to God that Fox News doesn't use Microsoft IIS for its web server." :)

[Numbers Guy]

It's "wrong" to take down obnoxious but legal websites and hack them and so forth.

It's also "wrong" to tee-pee a house, to tie cans to the rear bumper of two newlyweds' car, or to moon peace demonstrators.

It's all "wrong", but it feels so good . . .

[Steven W.]

Last week the AlJazeera guy appeared at a Washington symposium. A stupid liberal in the audience actually asked him, "can you describe the additional freedoms you enjoy outside the US given the limitations on reporting here?"! I Almost choked! The guy actually thought that AlJazeera, broadcasting from Qatar, was thus so enlightened and able to share truths that journalists are somehow prohibited from speaking here in the US, like the ficticious "cold wind" that Tim Robbins is so afraid of. I found myself, once again, asking, are liberals really this dumb (when, of course, their stupidity, as just demonstrated, always proves that to be the answer)

[sharktrager]

Propaganda was specifically what the founding fathers had in mind with the freedom of speech and the press. Essentially the Federalist Papers were propaganda.

Just because we don't like what someone says doesn't mean it's not protected.

[neefer]

I certainly hope to God that Fox News doesn't use Microsoft IIS for its web server

LOL! Patches, patches and more patches.

[m1911]

What was the answer?

[Yo-Yo]

The remedy for speech one disagrees with is more speech.