I deliberately put a part of that post in italics at the top, because I read the findlaw article you posted (nice article, BTW). Here it is again, to remind you:
The closure of Al Arabiya's office follows earlier sanctions against the channel and Al Jazeera -- both of which have broadcast messages attributed to Saddam -- under a Governing Council decree banning incitement to violence.
Those messages, like tapes purported to be the voice or image of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), have also been broadcast by Western media outlets. But no action has been taken against Western media, sparking accusations of discrimination against Arab channels that Washington accuses of siding with Saddam.
I bold the important parts. Other stations have also broadcast the same tapes, without action being taken against them.
to me it makes a great deal of difference if the news is portrayed accurately and without connotation and innuendo. Chris Matthews team went to Iraq and quoted Shittes saying they hate Al -Jazeera (nothing on Al arabia that I heard) because it lies and should be shut down. Should those voices be heard also
Sure they should. Be allowed to broadcast, that is. Of course you can find people who say Al Jazeera is a bunch of lies, just like in this country a lot of us say Fox is a lot of lies and exaggerations--should we shut them down? NO, of course not. We have to hope that people are smart enough to see the lies for what they are. It's hard to think of this now, but Al Jazeera had a pretty good reputation until they started opposing the US invasion of Iraq. They were seen as a relatively free Arab news outlet, one that questioned long held Arab beliefs. They are being smeared now by some people who don't like the line they are taking. What a surprise.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
