Apparently, they do not find Islamic terrorist videos to be hate speech. You know, video's that call for the destruction of, well, basically anything not to their liking. With violence. They are essentially telling us what they want to, and will, do. But, hey, they apparently have a constitutionalright to do this, as opposed to people who call someone a racial epitaph and, if the Liberals have their way, conservatives speaking on the radio, among others

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.

Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was "not enough," and demanded that more come down.

The half vast editorial staff noticed this line at The Jawa Report

See when a US company hosts videos (or other propaganda) created by specially designated terrorist organizations such as Hezbollahand al-Qaeda with the goal of aiding their war against the United States, that is unlawful.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Furthermore, the Constitution does not apply to people who are not US citizens.

While it is fortunate that Mr. Lieberman does not have the power to tell YouTubethat it must remove videos, it is profoundly disturbing that an influential senator would even consider telling a media company to shut down constitutionally protected speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the "Homegrown Terrorism" bill and related efforts "could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet."

Notice, this is an editorial. There is no by-line. It is the official position of the NY Times that terrorist video's by people who are not US citizens, but are intent on destroying America, are A-f'ing-OK with the NY Times. Disturbing. Here is the kicker, though

Terrorism is a real concern. All Americans know that. They also know that if we give up our fundamental rights, the terrorists win. If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.

Getting beyond the point that the NY Times cares about opposing terrorism so much that they have been against every measure that the Bush administration has tried to stop it, and have released severalanti-terrorism programs for the world to see, this video's are "speech to engage in criminal acts," as per US law. See the The Jawa Report link above.

Oh, and if terrorism is such a concern to the NY Times, why is Frank Rich taking shots at Operation Iraqi Freedom and the people who are and have been fighting in it through the discussion of "South Pacific?"

Crossed at Pirate's Cove and McCain Blogs