"and that is what this whole article is all about. for an operator of a cable, satellite or news paper or ISP company to deny access for anyone from anywhere based on their own liking or bias should not be permitted."

...so cable companies should be forced to give channels to anyone that asks...

"They operate a public service not a private property. and by law, providers of public services are not allowed to deny their services based on bias or personal likings."

Nope. Al Jazeera isn't an islamic organization. They aren't non-profit or some kind of political organization. They are a for-profit business just like Fox News or any other, and whether they get on the channel lineup of cable companies will depend on user demand. The government forcing cable companies to carry channels regardless of their financial interests would be heinously abusable, wouldn't you think?

Or do you think we should all be forced to watch them, too, since you seem so friendly to government oppression. Common carriage doesn't apply here. If it did you could force every store in America to carry any magazine you want, too. I wonder, would you feel the same if they were forced to carry Israeli news channels?

So, given you believe that expression and "living your life as you see fit" can be regulated, it just becomes a sliding scale, right? There is no hard, objective ideal here, just your values against other people's in a democracy.

Eh, if I understand you correctly - yes, like anyone else/anything else.

I'm sure you don't believe people have the right to slander one another or issue knowingly false threats, like shouting "Fire!!" in a crowded theater. I'm also sure you don't believe people should have the right to murder, rape, and steal, either.

You are correct.

I dont like it/don't think it is right, but nothing stops them from doing such/attempting it.

BakerStreet: you certainly misread my reply. i said if "the content does not violate the rules under which they operate". That includes prfit/loss rules of course. and yes for sure i would like to see what the Israeli channels say too. Actually i make a point of trying to get what they say one way or another. Information never hurt. And far from it, i am not asking the government to force them, all i am saying they should follow their own rules without bias. also, i never said anyone should be forced to see anything. just dont deny them access if they comply with your own rules, and let the market work. The bias in this case is very obvious specially for the ISP. and that is what makes it really look bad.

they refused to carry the channel and blocked access to its internet site.

Where and when did this happen? I have no problems whatsoever accessing the Al Jazeera site, nor have I ever heard of any ISPs blocking it.

Dear me... what an inept bunch of politicians Americans are.

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees to its citizens the right of freedom of speech. It does not guarantee to them the right of freedom of hearing, or more generally, the right of freedom of perceiving.

Even more specifically, it does not guarantee to the citizens of America the right to perceive the anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-civil society, anti-laissez faire capitalism bullshit propaganda produced by demented ragheads whose sole agenda is the overthrow of American society and American values.

Be damned to the Arabs and their ilk, and their point of view. The legitimate Government of America defines these persons and their views as antithetical to everything America and Americans value: that in itself is sufficient ground for viewing with considerable suspicion everything produced by these people. If you are an American why should you wish to know what these devils think or feel? Why should you be concerned with their point of view?

By all means, let the values of Americans determine what is and is not worthwhile to be perceived by Americans. You berate American Corporations for, supposedly, denying access to the hate-filled rants of those who oppose America - why should such opposition be condemned? It's the right of all peoples to defend what they value most, and to prevent (as far as it can be prevented) the corruption of those values.

As I said above, if you are an American what interest do you have in the opinions of those you know are your enemy? If you have such an interest, and are fool enough to declare it in public, it's my opinion you should be put up against a wall and shot.

But then, this is America. And, unfortunately, we don't do such things here. Unlike the vile ragheads whose opinions you are so concerned for, who do not merely and humanely shoot their victims but either behead them in public, or pour kerosene over them and burn them to death in the public square.

Be damned to them, and their opinions.

Ricree: Aljazeera.net is different from the english.aljazeera.net. This second one is the one i am talking about. the site is there but you cant access its live video due to the restrictions. They say they are still attempting to remove these restrictions. lets hope it is resolved soon. Try to access the video from their site , here is the link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm

That's how you think their business should be run. That's not how they think their business should be run. Look into how the cable industry works. Sure, there's a lot of channels, but that doesn't mean that everyone but al jazeera is getting a slot.

I'd be curious as to how you feel about the recent OJ Simpson thing. Do you think that Fox did the wrong thing giving the show the axe? No doubt a lot of people would have bought the book and watched the show, but they felt the harm it would do their brand by association outweighed the gains.

Isn't that the same case here?

EmperorofIceCream: (The legitimate Government of America defines these persons and their views as antithetical to everything America and Americans value: that in itself is sufficient ground for viewing with considerable suspicion everything produced by these people) hmmmm, so i should really close my mind and just let the government decide for me and if we all follow that advice then the government will decide for all of us what is what !!!!!. regrdless of who is saying what a fair minded person should listen and see what is being said with a healthy dose of suspicion then think and decide if that makes sense or not. that is the whole essence of Democracy. Surrendering our right to know and think and decide for ourselves to the Government is a dear principle and dream of every dictator ever existed anywhere at anytime.

(if you are an American what interest do you have in the opinions of those you know are your enemy) to know our enemy, and see what makes them an enemy and how can we respond to that in a way that best serves our interest. Is that not good enough reason? There are many more good reasons. May be that enemy could be neutralised by simple things or more understanding, may be we can achieve what we want without wars.

Your opinion is that i should be shot because i want to see what our "enemy" says about us? the "vile ragheads" dont even do that. They carry CNN, BBC and all the rest and their people hear and read that we describe them as "vile ragheads" and describe their religion as evil and call them ALL terrorists. And do you know what they say after that: they say that is the US government, the American people are not like that. You know why they say that? because they also see and hear the other side of America and they read about it and learn what it stands for.

Calling people names does not solve any problems. and we certainly have problems. shouldn't we have the right to know why these problems exist? and how best to solve them? or we just go to wars before we know what kind of enemy we will be fighting? i guess u dont believe in "Give me liberty or give me death", as for me .... go ahead ... shoot.

EoIC is a troglodyte, and not in any way representative of why this channel didn't make it here.

You should know that if there were a large enough market for al jazeera it would be right there alongside people eating bugs and Flavor Flav picking his harem of women with no self-esteem. For every complaint from folks like you who believe there's too much in the way of discrimination, there's a thousand people like me who wish they'd be more selective.

Won't this channel be owned by the same company? Do you think it is a valid consideration that the money we help this channel earn will further empower the OTHER channel that has no problem giving voice to the worst moral equivalence? Al jazeera is seen as an outlet for terrorist propaganda, and people don't want to buy into that, even if they smooth it all over here.

Even more specifically, it does not guarantee to the citizens of America the right to perceive the anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-civil society, anti-laissez faire capitalism bullshit propaganda produced by demented ragheads whose sole agenda is the overthrow of American society and American values.

Thank you.

I'd be curious as to how you feel about the recent OJ Simpson thing. Do you think that Fox did the wrong thing giving the show the axe? No doubt a lot of people would have bought the book and watched the show, but they felt the harm it would do their brand by association outweighed the gains.Isn't that the same case here?

If not, it's pretty darned close.

Al jazeera is seen as an outlet for terrorist propaganda, and people don't want to buy into that, even if they smooth it all over here.

Thank you.

They operate a public service not a private property. and by law, providers of public services are not allowed to deny their services based on bias or personal likings. bias against knowledge and information is worse than bias against color, gender or any other form of bias.

You're quite wrong here. I worked in the industry for more than 10 years and am quite familiar with the regulations governing it. Firstly, cable companies are private entities not public utilities although they are somewhat regulated in a similar fashion and loosely grouped in with them. They are legally prohibited from refusing to provide service to people based upon those criteria, but this has nothing at all to do with what channels they carry, only to whom they provide their service.

The regulations do require certain types of channel access be made available but this is limited to community service type channels, and a percentage of public access channels. Carrying any channel requires an agreement between the broadcaster and the cable entity.

There is nothing in those regulations obligating them to carry certain channels or programming beyond what I already mentioned. Cable companies select channels to carry based upon requests from the subscribers and the franchise agreements negotiated with the local governments.

If they receive enough requests for a certain channel from their subscriber base they will carry that channel if technically and financially feasible. There is no regulation requiring them to do so or prohibiting them from refusing to do so.