|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
You are in: Talking Point | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Wednesday, 17 October, 2001, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK
Should the terrorists' message be censored?
Broadcasting executives have been called to a meeting at Downing Street to discuss their use of television footage of Osama Bin Laden.
The government has expressed concern over the use of televised messages by Bin Laden amid fears that the tapes may contain secret coded messages to terrorists in the UK. This follows the unprecedented agreement by the five major US television networks to limit broadcasts of statements by Bin Laden and his associates. CBS said it was committed to "responsible journalism that informs the public without jeopardising American lives". The Arabic television station al-Jazeera criticised the US broadcasters' decision. Chief editor Ibrahim Hilal said, "I don't think the United States, which taught the world about freedom of expression, should now begin to limit it." Should Bin Laden and al-Qaeda's statements be censored? And should such measures only apply in times of war? This Talking Point is now closed. Read your reactions below.
Raymond Mbala, Dallas, TX USA
I would like to know who gave Mr. Bush the authority to decide who lives and who dies. Bin Laden, present or not should be tried in an international court and then if proven guilty no one can question the war on terrorism. This would also cause less resistance and resentment against America. Censoring Bin Laden's messages is just doing the opposite.
Alok Govil, NY, USA
I was one of those to criticize the US stance of a guilty verdict on Bin Laden but having heard Bin Laden's rhetoric I am not too sure of my view now. Censoring would not have changed my mind in this way. Possibly the reverse would have been achieved giving out messages, which would have smacked of conspiracies and of sweeping under the carpet. Let him speak and we will judge for ourselves. As for coded messages? This is far fetched as he could communicate in other ways. Also Bin Laden's helpers do not need instructions from him to carry out revenge attacks. They can do it without being instructed.
The more his seen the quicker he's captured. He dares to show his face after such horror, a face the world wants to slap!
Bahadur, India
The right to freedom of speech carries with it an implied responsibility not to use that freedom to curtail other people's freedom, stir up trouble, or put lives in jeopardy. When someone refuses to accept any of those responsibilities, their freedom to be heard should be curtailed in return. Bin Laden has used the media to try to incite violence, so his comments should be censored until such time as he has the courage to face a journalist and be interviewed under circumstances where the opposite point of view can be put to him and to his audience.
The messages could be shown with a warning. Censoring hugely undermimes the intelligence & freedom of people. I strongly believe we have a right to hear Bin Laden's motives for the atrocoties wether we like them or not.
I think that Voltaire said it best - 'I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it'
Olekantse Sennamose, Botswana
No, I do not believe that Bin Laden or al-Qaeda should be censored. The US coverage is already unbalanced, how tedious would it be to have a totally one-sided Western press. Osama is clearly the important figure here and we need to know what he is thinking, planning and saying. After all, we are the witnesses of history and should be aware of every development, and of why the civilized world went to war to get one man. He seems to be the only one willing to show America the results of their actions and attitudes and how they earned so many enemies. Both sides are practicing terrorism and censorship won't prevent it now. Is he worth the bombing and destruction of Afghanistan and the destabilization of the region? Bin Laden is already a star and is likely to remain a symbol for some time no matter how, when or where Sheriff Bush and his deputies take him out.
Firstly, I'm not the Susan whose remarks appear earlier on this page, and I do not support that viewpoint. I am APPALLED when I walk into my local supermarkets to see Osama Bin Laden's face plastered over every magazine and tabloid. Notwithstanding the fact that we still have to see all the evidence linking him to the WTC attack, the man is totally anti-American and anti-British, so why do we give him so much room? It's time to protect ourselves against his kind of vitriol, and protect our children too from having to hear his messages of hate. However, the BBC are nowhere near as bad as MSNBC, CNN and all the other so called news media here, who delight in scare mongering in the name of public information!
It's a pity, really, to hear such comments from countries that call themselves the free world, who always and painstakingly lecture the Third World as they call it about freedom of speech and human rights. It is obvious to the world now that such nations have double identities, and react to circumstances depending on their needs and fears, not conviction. Hearing Bin Laden on al-Jazeera has posed a threat too many of them, and especially that it was broadcast by an Arab TV station. Anyway, if such nations, who feel threatened by Bin Laden's speech, take any action against broadcasting similar events in the future, they will only prove, how much Third World they are. Just like the rest of us.
What would be wrong with not showing the video of the message but instead showing the message in a text so we do not have to censor it and we all can still here his message without compromising the safety of innocent people?
Sarah, US
No. Being told by anyone (let alone our current government) what I can and cannot hear and see is deeply insulting. I want to get the truth delivered to my brain for me to make of it what I want, not to be told what to think about a person or issue. Censoring of any kind on an issue such as this will breed mistrust and contempt - ultimately hindering those fighting for a more rational world.
As pointed out in earlier comments, given that his comments are actually being translated, it is unlikely that he is sending coded messages through his statements. And it is also true that even if he were, it would be just as easy to send these messages out on the internet. What is slightly more difficult is sending out video of himself on the internet. It is entirely possible that he is sending messages through his dress or body language. Can we not view a static picture of him whilst listening to his statement?
Iain Ball, UK
I feel that we should hear what bin Laden has to say, because if we censor him, people will wonder what our governments are afraid of, after all he has already said outright to attack Brits and Americans where possible. Could it be that he is winning the propaganda war at the moment? Besides, why should we not hear what he is saying when we have to listen to all the rubbish Bush and Blair are coming out with about how they are not targeting afghan people (it's just that some of them seem to jumping under our bombs)in this so called just war against terrorism. We already get fed what our governments want us to hear, this would be one more step towards Big Brother, something we seem to accuse other countries of doing to their people.
I hate to say it, but, yes, the videos should be censored.
The problem is that after the September 11 attacks, people are read to believe anything Bin Laden says.
All he has to do is send out a warning that this or that will be the next target and he effectively paralyses the work carried out in that industry or facility, or that part of the country, just by saying a few words.
Everything is so centralised now. Remember what happened with the lorry drivers blockades - a few facilities closed can cause havoc.
Blissful ignorance is starting to look an attractive option just now...
Let Bin Laden and the other Taleban have their say but on the same terms as all of our Western politicians speak to the media - they are questioned later on what they say by a free press. Otherwise one-way speech becomes propaganda.
Dear BBC:
I don't understand, if OBL's TV speeches are "giving messages to
terrorists", why would they wait for them to be broadcast on western media?
They are available on many sites on the internet. And the terrorists who
attacked the US on September 11 used encryption to communicate through the
internet, why would they be waiting for western media to rebroadcast a video
release? It seems the American administration don't want the American people
to hear what OBL has to say. I thought this "war on terrorism", was to
defend our way of life, such as freedom of speech?
I would say don't censor Bin Laden from a practical point of view. With the Internet and many radio stations willing to broadcast him, censoring him won't stop him sending secret messages. I think we learned that censorship of terrorists is counter-productive from when we used to censor IRA spokesmen. The messages Bin Laden sends out are not going to suddenly convince anyone committed to peace that they should be terrorists, from what I have seen it will just convince them that he is wrong. On the other hand, anyone who is leaning towards terrorism would be more likely to assume that Bin Laden has something important to say if he is censored. They will assume that we are censoring him because we are frightened of the truth, and if they manage to receive his message by other means it will have been added weight and credence by the fact that it is censored from public screening.
The PM was telling us last week not to listen to the lies of the Taleban and Osama Bin Laden, what is the difference between them and his Milbank house machine! Or is that called spin.
Ken Berryman, Canada Censorship will lead to scepticism and cynicism in the minds of the ordinary people. Any subsequent military actions will only have one side of the story. People would like to learn about the minds of the enemy as well. At least, the recent statements by Bin Laden and Co. have strengthened the views of the millions across the globe that they (members of al Qaeda) are directly involved in the horrendous attacks unleashed in the US.
Toni, USA
The whole idea of censoring bin Laden in case he is issuing coded messages is ridiculous. He is already issuing direct orders to kill in clear text. Coded messages are not the problem. The problem is that he incites to murder and violence. Anyone doing this would be prosecuted in most countries - democratic or not. This is not a free speech issue.
Yes, he should be censored. The world is aware of his views, but is incitements are not legal under the UK laws. The Government should consider this topic very seriously.
The Americans asked Qatar to censor al-Jazeera. Yet no Arab leader has called for the censorship of CNN. Only the Americans can enjoy freedom of speech. Others (especially Arabs) shall be treated like dirt. Stop practising these double standards otherwise you'll end up like in Singapore where only the ruling party has airtime.
Many in this discussion have referred to censoring Gerry Adams. My guess is that with our friends in the UK, common sense would take precedence over Political Correctness if Gerry Adams were to think he had a "right" to use the BBC to call upon all Irish citizens everywhere to kill the British. Osama bin Laden is not Gerry Adams! He is not even a politician; he is a man who uses the mass murder of civilians as a way of getting our attention. So far, he has attacked only American property (though he has killed citizens of many countries). Rest assured he is already planning more mayhem. Will you all feel the same way about his "right" to use Western media if his next attack is in London or Paris?
Bin Laden has been tried and convicted as a terrorist by the world's media, on incitement by the US goverment. In all the reports I have read not one of them has offered any evidence against him. Whilst Bush is free to spread propaganda unhindered, to be lapped up and regurgitated by the media then yes Bin Laden has the absolute right to speak for himself. He is an innocent man until proven guilty. Lets not forget that. Coded messages? What a joke. The US intelligence (sic) should have been watching for coded messages whilst the hijacking operation was being planned and executed under their well-trained superior noses, by whoever was responsible. The US government is being disingenuous in supposing that Bin Laden and his group are it's only enemies.
Joni Tarkelly, USA
A famous Madison, Wisconsin editor once said, "Let the people have the truth and the freedom to discuss it and all will go well."
We can show the strength of our freedom by allowing Osama bin Laden his airtime. Besides, if he can send videos to Arab countries, he can issue commands at the same time. Most of my friends talk about this "war" and their conversations are very serious, often passionate and deep but the bottom line is always the same. Terrorism, the intentional killing of innocent people, is morally wrong and cannot be ignored.
John, Scotland
No. Already in this 'war' we have legitimised the undemocratic government of General Musharraf, are supporting the Northern Alliance (a bunch of thugs and murderers), and ignoring Russia's continued human rights abuses in Chechnya. Now our governments want to censor the media? President Bush told us that these awful acts were committed because the perpetrators 'hate freedom and democracy'. Surely the best way to defeat them would be to ensure freedom and democracy are spread in the world, not repress them?
We the people have the right (and obligation really) to evaluate all available information. Not just that which our government considers fit for our consumption. I'm not concerned with bin Laden's freedom or rights, but I'm increasingly worried about mine.
Linda , Canada
This just goes to show our freedoms are really only on a superfical level. If they want to censor what Bin Laden has to say, then they should consider censoring Bush's comments in fear of inciting hate crimes. Bush often implies that people other than Americans and their allies are uncivilized.
Of course Bin Laden should be censored; his remarks are clearly inciting violence. If his extremist views are not censored, then that in itself could lead to serious crimes being commited. Those in a position to do something about this clearly should; non-action is just as much an action as action itself.
No he should not be censored.
Anybody who doesn't like what he says can
practice self censorship and cover their ears.
Neha, Australia
The US is not censoring anything. It simply asked that news agencies look through the message first, and see if there is anything they may recognize as a possible coded message, before airing the statements. They will still play his messages, even if they may be 30 seconds shorter. And the US did not require this, it simply asked for cooperation, and many of the media outlets agreed. If an outlet chooses to play the entire message, without viewing it first, they are still able to do so. Comparisons to the Soviet Union are ridiculous. The people of Britain may want to hear both sides, but it's safe to say that most in the US don't. This isn't a debate. We're not all going to vote for a winner. These people attacked our country and killed 6,000 innocent people. It's insulting to imply that this man may say something in his broadcast that would justify deliberate attacks on innocent civilians.
In response to Chris Daniel, USA, why did Colin Powell go to Katar and ask to restrict al-Jazeera from broadcasting any anti-American comments. In other words the imperialists want us to say just good things about them. If you believe you have freedom, why shouldn't we ask for evidence? They say there is no democracy in the Middle East.
Colin Powell is doing his best to support that. Come and see the media lies about the Muslims in the US, and you will see what I am talking about. Good luck democracy!
I can't believe what I'm reading! Who are you people to think it is perfectly acceptable to allow Bin Laden into every living room across the world to plead his cause, vent his anger, spin his propaganda and launch an unprecedented recruitment drive for his death squads. Stop trying to be politically correct and think for a change.
It's very refreshing to find an American with views like those expressed by John Berkshire in this discussion. At last an American who acknowledges the need to look at the wider picture.
While it is important that the US is in no way seen to be giving in to terrorists, I think the attitude of Mayor Giuliani in refusing to accept a US$10m aid cheque from the Saudi royal family because they "dared" suggest that America needs to review its foreign policy is totally indicative of the arrogant attitude that got the US in this mess in the first place.
Robert, UK
He should be censored because he has hatred and he is evil. He has no love at all
No, Bin Laden should not be censored. Does anybody remember the censorship imposed on Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland? It lasted only a few weeks but it made the British Government look desperate and it smacked of contol freakery
Christian J DeFeo, United Kingdom
The media is paraphrasing, since Bin Laden is not speaking English. I'd be surprised if they are passing on encoded messages in English.
The way he holds his hands, or the timing in scratching his nose, or the hidden meanings that we cannot pick up behind his words, could all be signals to his people to carry out preplanned attacks. If there weren't this threat, I'd say let him talk all he wants - it only shows his ignorance and hatred. But if it's an issue pertaining to my safety and security - don't show any of it. We all know what he wants to say anyway.
It's naive to think that a symbolic gesture by the main US news networks could hinder the chain of command in a terrorist or any other organisation. If these rules are going to be applied, then they must apply to all - after all George Bush could be sending coded messages to special forces troops via his press conferences.
Toby, USA (UK expat)
Bin Laden should be allowed to say what he wants - otherwise he has achieved his aim. Its not as though anything he says is going to affect his fate at this stage.
When Salman Rushdie blasphemed Islam, Britian spoke about "Freedom of Speech" and the world community supported it. The UK government gave "Scotland Yard" protection to this guy. Where is the freedom of speech now?
If I have to listen to the "facts" which are given out at the US/UK military press conferences every time I watch the news, then I may as well hear what Osama Bin Laden has to say. I treat both sources with suspicion.
Ever since the horrific attacks on the 11th September, I have been in no doubt whatsoever that military action is entirely justified. Now I hear that the US & UK governments are trying to censor Bin Laden and for the firt time I am having doubts. If our actions are justified, then what are they trying to hide? I will not be a brainwashed clone! I want to make up my own mind! Now, more than ever before, I want to hear what Bin Laden has to say, so that I can rest assured that he must be destroyed.
Margo, USA
If 'The Cowboy' can say over the TV 'Dead or Alive' then why does he want to stop Bin Laden saying same thing. I like to hear from both sides.
Yes his comments should be limited. I also would like to say that if the forces want to attack the funding of the terrorists maybe they should bomb the poppy fields that provide money and give us such a huge drug problem.
I must say this to the people who seem to believe Bin Laden has some rights. The freedoms of society are not meant to be used by criminals to advance their criminal actions or philosophies.
Would the same people who hold that Bin Laden has the right to say whatever he wishes have been so eager to give Hitler free air time?
The right of your fist stops at the point of my nose.
Free speech finds its limit at the point of the endangerment of others.
To censor his words is not the same as censoring yours or mine. This monster, this evil blot on the collective human soul, spreads only the foul stench of hatred with his words. The time is come to silence those words forever.
John Henry, Netherlands If we are fighting for freedom then how can we at the same time deny the freedom of speech?
I am a bit concerned that most people on this forum believe that Bin Laden was responsible. Personally I'd like to review the evidence before making such a rash judgement. I recall that initially terrorists from the Middle East were blamed for the Oklahoma bombing until the truth came out.
Bin Laden is saying nothing new - but what he has been telling his followers without our knowledge. His followers know already what they stand for. However, now the world can see for itself what sort of person he really is. There might have been doubts in some people's minds as to whether he is actually responsible for the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Are such people still in doubt now? Or are his statements too revealing? I doubt if these statements are earning him any more support or friends than those of his own camp. Therefore, I see no reason for censoring them - there is something for 'the other side' to learn from them!
No censorship. Freedom of speech comes first.
It's ludicrous to suggest that coded messages may be sent. In any case, anyone in the world can watch al-Jazeera TV on the internet.
Are we afraid of the words of an evil man? Or are we afraid that he may expose shameful truths about double standards in US foreign policy in the middle east?
Irfan Ahmed, India No, Bin Laden shouldn't be censored. If, and I haven't yet seen enough evidence to put blame on him, Bin Laden and the al-Qaeda are responsible, then the world needs to truly see what type of people they are. To hear what extent they are willing to go to kill and hurt innocent people. All this will be vital as evidence the day I personally hope they are caught and brought to justice. Seeing pictures and hearing politicians' clichéd statements isn't enough. More importantly, there is never one side to any story. Plus the more we know about these organisations the better the chance we have of bringing them to justice.
Censorship is self-defeating. Censoring Gerry Adams only served to convince outsiders that Britain was an oppressive force in Northern Ireland. Censoring bin Laden will have the same effect on the Arab world.
This issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The Nazis managed to get the Germans to do what they did using propaganda, and it is a vital weapon of war for extremists. Let Bin Laden say what he wants, sure - but anyone who broadcasts them is doing nothing less than supporting his war effort.
P Rossi, Botswana
Did the UK and the US carry Hitler's radio transmissions live, or show Hitler's speeches in theatres, during WWII?
Did that make the UK and the US less worthy in their struggle against fascism and Nazism?
Did that show that the US and the UK were not at the time the true champions of democracy and freedom of speech?
Bin Laden, his followers, and all violent fundamentalists of all ideological backgrounds are today's Nazis.
We would not tolerate live uncensored broadcast of anti-immigrant National Front messages on the BBC. We will not tolerate such broadcast from even more dangerous mystical fascists either.
I've read a number of comments along the lines of "Innocent until proven guilty" in relation to bin laden. He is certainly not innocent. Even if he did not do the September 11th attacks. He has accepted responsibility for several other terrorist attacks - so please stop defending him. As far as censorship goes, it's academic. His broadcasts are in Arabic and most westerners get a superimposed English translation. So the BBC, CNN etc, only have to turn the sound off and broadcast the English bit thus avoiding coded incitements to violence.
If BinLaden's broadcast need to be censored, then what about Bush's and Tony Blair's broadcasts?
I think media should be giving the facts from both the sides and let the people decide who is right and who is wrong. Let the public analyse what is wrong and where exactly it is going wrong.
Yes, censor him to the point of banning all his broadcasts. That principle should apply to everyone accused of a crime until they appear in court.
Problem is that the terrorist cells have probably gone autonomous anyway.
Raj, New York, USA
Are we really surprised by this? Do we honestly believe that our governments have never used censorship and propaganda before? Do we honestly believe that our governments do not use censorship and propaganda on a daily basis? Are we really that gullible?
Information is power. Whoever controls the information has the power. It's that simple. Morality and human rights get tossed right out the window when war is concerned. Idealism doesn't change the fact that 'we've' got our guns pointed at 'them' and 'they've' got their guns pointed at 'us'.
All those arguing that he should not be censored are missing the point entirely... The concern is not the content of his words, but the threat of signalling operatives. His network is vast and well coordinated and it would not be surprising if his absurd ramblings are coded messages to his lackeys in the United States. He should be censored at all costs, and only paraphrased summaries of his statements should be issued.
I always thought that a democracy allowed people to form their own opinions. I do not wish our media institutions to become merely propaganda machines for the government.
Matt Jamieson, England The silencing of Bin Laden in favour of voices from the west does not serve the greater good, but only leads to more speculation on the side of the American and British media. We need to hear from both sides. What ever happened to the freedom of speech?
The general public should be able to hear, assess, and evaluate statements made by people on both sides of any issue. Is this not part and parcel of a truly democratic society? With all the cyber-pornographic materials readily accessible to even children these days, what's all the fuss about to Bin Laden's smut?
In times of conflict, it is important to control the media for the benefit of the civilian population and to gain an advantage to end the war. In this scenario I feel that Bin Laden should be censored completely. That way if he wishes to be heard he will have to reveal himself and that will give the military a better chance to catch him.
Andy Rammell, Cardiff, Wales
I find it ironic that so-called democratic states such as the USA and UK would want to restrict freedom of speech to anyone including Bin Laden. Calling it propaganda is hypocrisy since all we see on the news is one-sided western propaganda justifying the bombing of innocent civilians in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Only if they are also willing to censor the disgraceful statements of "war" published by most western media. No declaration of war has been signed, so this is not a war.
I agree with Jan. It's not a true war until it's declared.
So I personally declare war now on al-Qaeda and everyone associated with them. There, it's declared. Now let's go to war.
Gary Edwards, UK
Although I completely believe in free speech, the messages being sent by Bin Laden could be intended for other terrorists telling instructing them as to when to carry out the next attack. It is really an issue of security. I think that generally speaking, the US is doing the right thing. Besides, it's not like Bin Laden is trying to give an explanation for his actions. I think the only thing he knows how to say is jihad. Pretty narrow minded if you ask me.
Bryan, USA
The press is paying too much attention to bad than good. I don't think the terrorists should be given such attention. It is creating more problems elsewhere. Bin Laden says he is in hiding. Then let him hide and rot.
Maybe, but then so should Bush and Blair with their limited vocabulary. Bush's erroneous analogies and Blair's repetitive warmongering droning are as dangerous and irritating as Bin Laden's propaganda speeches, if not more so. Unfortunately I understand their every word.
Simon Moore, UK
They should certainly not be censored by the government, but I often wonder why our broadcasters see fit to provide a podium to voice these terrorists goals. I would think that simply stating that he had given an announcement would be sufficient. Both sides are not equal here and should not be treated as such.
There should be no censorship of Bin Laden's statements. I want to hear his side of the story. The bombing of NY cannot be justified but why don't the allies show the world the supposed undeniable evidence. Is it not time to address the root problem of terrorism caused by the US's foreign policy in the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, this is still occurring as we speak.
Yes he should be censored. In all probability he is communicating with terrorists still in the US. Why should he be given the chance to talk?
Nita, Kenya
No censorship. I want to hear what everyone has to say.
If the media is asked not to show these statements what else are they being asked not to show? Freedom of speech is one thing we are fighting for.
Jeanne, USA
Here we go again, the US is bombing another third world country in the interest of freedom. What a joke. What does it know about furthering freedom apart from furthering its own selfish interests. It is merely censoring the media from the Arab world. Let's do away with censorship and hear both sides.
No. We believe in free speech. Those who listen will make their own judgement. Why not send Jeremy Paxman out to do an interview? I bet it will take more than a few attempts to get a straight answer to the question, were you responsible for the September 11 attacks?
Free speech in both the US and UK has been taken to extremes. Okay, we are free nations, but are we free to promote violence, hatred and terror? And to Kevin, UK - yes, people will listen and make up their own minds, including some who will decide to act according to Bin Laden's instructions.
Rouan, United Kingdom
Who will prosecute the US for all their terrorist activities around the world? Remember Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Greece, Turkey, Argentina, Korea, Vietnam, to name a few, where the US funded and supported brutal military juntas and terror. And now they claim defenders of democracy and freedom. I think I'll be sick.
Censorship, in any form is violation to the first amendment. Does anyone think that by the major networks not showing these taped speeches the "coded" messages will not be received by terrorists? I can point to 100's of other media outlets that will continue to broadcast this information in many different formats.
Even the worst of criminals has the right to give his point of view. It is a cornerstone of justice. Just as "innocent till proven guilty" is...or was ?
The king of spin - Tony Blair - is being beaten at his own game. Must be a bitter pill to swallow.
Richard, UK
From a security point of view, his comments inciting his fellow Muslims to kill should surely be censored. Free speech at any price? No thanks.
This kind of censorship certainly didn't work in the UK with Gerry Adams and the IRA, why on earth would we expect it to work with Bin Laden?
I don't think that Osama Bin Laden should be censored. If his outpouring of drivel is censored, his supporters will only make-up what he is supposedly saying. This little man's 15 minutes of infamy are nearly up, as well as the world's acceptance of hardline religion of any kind to justify murder. Let him speak, he won't be doing it for much longer.
G S, USA
Firstly, when people resort to killing innocent people, the perpetrators' human rights go out the window. One of these rights is the freedom of speech. Osama should not be allowed this right as he has forfeited it in carrying out these devastating and cowardly attacks. Therefore the answer is simple; deny him his human rights as he has denied these innocent people their rights to live.
I agree with what most people here have already said: it's absurd and hypocritical to censor in the name of 'freedom'. This is, sadly, typical of the attitude of most Americans today - all in favour of free speech, until someone says something they disagree with. George Washington would be spinning in his grave! I think Bin Laden and the Taleban should be allowed to speak, but also that more representation should be given to moderate Muslims who despise them just as much as the rest of us.
Yes - take him off the air. Lets treat him the way he condones all women to be treated if the world were overrun by Islamic fundamentalists (i.e. given no voice whatsoever). I really don't want to hear rhetoric from the dark ages, the rest of the world has moved on even if he hasn't, and its a shame he cant get over that
Susan, USA
Most of the tyrannies emerged as a fight for freedom. Be careful. We in Russia know in too damn well
The US is very protective of us and controls the kind of information that is provided in the media. This is patronizing to me. It would do no harm for us to be as fully informed as possible regarding this situation. Instead, the US continues to create a spin that omits certain elements of information on the pretence of National Security. It is clearly a propaganda ploy. They need to keep the American spirit up and running. If we come to understand the motives of the terrorists, we might be too informed, (there is such a thing). The "ignorance is bliss" method of thinking is the safest way to keep us uninformed, scared, and unreactionary. I believe the US does not trust us as a people to commit to the cause and is afraid that any message from the outside will warp our thinking. The government is a paternalistic figure, not a leader of the people.
Mireille, Canada
What an irony. Didn't Bush and Blair claim their war was to protect freedom itself?
If the US believe for a second that censorship of TV images are going to stop Bin Laden from communicating with potential 'Cells' in different countries they are sadly mistaken. The very medium that we are using here offers the easiest access to potential covert global communication possible. I say let him speak and when no more is heard from him we might assume he has fallen victim to one of the many who see him for what he is. A skulking man who cannot even stand tall and claim responsibility for what he or the group have done.
Coding messages in public airwaves is something that goes back to at least World War II and the French resistance. His messages can be used as part of his command and control structure. Therefore it has to be scrutinized. Yes, in America we cherish free speech but that does not mean you can scream fire in a crowded theatre. It does mean that you can say I think what the government is doing is wrong, or right. Or express an opinion. Free speech has nothing to do with the right to encode commands in broadcasts. It is just common sense people.
No, let him speak - so far he's just managed to justify the US attacks and prove his guilt with comments like "the storm of aircraft will continue". Having said that, people should keep in mind there is one major difference between his statements and those of western leaders: Bush and Blair are subject to questioning by professional journalists whereas Bin Laden's statements are broadcast to the world without anyone to expose his lunacy.
Efrosini Charalampidou, Greece
Absolutely not! I thought America's "New War" is being waged in the name of freedom and democracy. The question shouldn't be whether or not Bin Laden should be censored, but rather why hasn't the American government responded to the accusations and claims in his broadcast.
Scott, Gulfport, MS, USA
Absolutely he should be censored. Take the fangs out of the beast and the beast will die. Comparing the censoring of this beast with taking away others' freedom of speech is absolutely ridiculous.
If we censor Bin Laden it will only lead to more rampant speculation from the media
No, al-Qaeda statements should not be cennsored. The world should be allowed to hear their mad theories from the source. If anything it will help crystallise a strong opinion in the civilised world against the advocates of terror.
|
|
See also:
Other Talking Points:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Links to more Talking Point stories
|
 |
|
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy ~RS~a~RS~international~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
|
