A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on my own blog entitled “How the US Censors Arabs” which detailed two points of contention: First, the US export controls against Sudan, Syria (and Iran, Cuba, and North Korea) that prevent citizens of those countries from downloading certain software, and second, HR 2278, a bill that would consider any satellite provider which broadcasts certain channels (Al Manar, Al Aqsa, and Al Rifadayn were all specifically mentioned) as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” specifically for their alleged broadcasting of “incitement to violence against the United States.”

In regard to the first point, slight changes have been made: in recent weeks, it was announced that the Treasury Department’s export controls on Iran, Cuba, and Sudan would be loosened to facilitate the downloading of certain tools and software deemed for communication. Syria, which is subject to a different set of controls (under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Department, and part of the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2004), was left out. Although there are certainly loads of potential geopolitical implications, one simple thought can be gleaned: Iranians, Sudanese and Cubans are all people the US wants to help to serve its own purposes; Syrians are not a priority.

The second bit, regarding HR 2278, is a bit more alarming; on December 8, 2009, the bill passed through the House with a vote of 395 to 3. HR 2278 would effectively punish satellite providers such as NileSat for hosting channels deemed to be terrorists by the US (how a channel can be a terrorist, I will never know). What’s scarier is that if the satellite provider chooses to kowtow to the directive in order to remain afloat, the implications don’t simply affect US viewers, but viewers across the Arab world as well, who will be cut off from some of the better news channels in the region. Although Al Manar may certainly broadcast things that US viewers would find objectionable, it’s also often the first on the scene, a the Palestine Chronicle recently pointed out was the case following the recent Ethiopian Airlines crash in Lebanon.

With all of the shouting surrounding Chinese and Iranian Internet censorship, I’m frankly still surprised that Western organizations aren’t jumping on the US for the censorship they’re supporting (note: Reporters Without Borders published this opposition piece while I was penning this post; how timely!). But then again, perhaps I’m not…support of China and Iran comes from some innate Western sense of responsibility to help those they view as foreign dissidents, whereas citizens of other nations are often deemed unimportant. Just look at my first example–Syria, a country with plenty of bloggers, techies, and innovators, is still subject to great harm by an outdated US law that prevents its citizens from using the most basic of tools legally (don’t fret too much over the Syrians–they’ve got plenty of access to pirated software; note the irony, of course).

I am not remotely ignorant to the horrid censorship that these countries impose on their own people, of course; my day job is tracking Internet filtering globally, and Arab countries often rank amongst the worst offenders. But how can Americans like Hillary Clinton stand up and claim desire for freedom of speech (and Net freedom in particular) to be part of the American “brand” allthewhile backing initiatives like HR 2278 and the Commerce Department and OFAC controls?

Related posts:

1. Un-Sanctioning Syria
2. France bans conspicuous political symbols
3. Syria Online
4. You Heard the Verdict?
5. Marwan Kraidy on Arab Media Charter