The Washington Institute for Near East Policy discusses the harassment and censorship bloggers face in the Middle East, and US policies on supporting free speech in the region: Internet Freedom in the Middle East: Challenges for U.S. Policy

Excerpt:

U.S. Policy and Freedom of Expression

As authoritarian Arab regimes face complex challenges in the way they deal with the explosion of political speech on the internet, U.S. policy should be clear. The Egyptian regime’s recent sentencing of Suleiman, and the censorship of internet speech in Egypt and other allied states, runs contrary to American values and undermines long-term U.S. interests in the region.

U.S. officials are worried about how much political speech in the Arab world is hostile to the United States, as well as the way in which radical Islamists use the internet to spread messages of hate and to celebrate attacks against Western civilians and military targets. These are not empty concerns — the internet is jihadists’ propaganda machine of choice. U.S. enemies in Iraq, for example, have used the web as a weapon to publicize and even coordinate attacks against U.S. forces. The Egyptian government, and others, would claim that complete freedom of political speech on the internet plays into the hands of Islamist parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

This claim, however, should ring false in the ears of U.S. policymakers. Egyptian authorities played the “Islam card” themselves in the case against Suleiman. Although al-Azhar University expelled and brought charges against Suleiman (who had claimed that the religious institution stifled freedom of expression), it was the government of Egypt that tried, convicted, and imprisoned him. The state used the excuse of Suleiman’s “insult against Islam” and his criticism of Mubarak to punish him under Article 179 of the Egyptian Penal Code, which allows for the detention of “whoever affronts the President of the Republic.” By using criticism of Islam as a pretext to silence political speech, the government violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Egypt ratified in 1982.

The United States is in a difficult position when its support of free speech conflicts with concerns about the radical Islamist message conveyed by some of those speaking freely. This, of course, does not apply to Suleiman’s case. It may be of special concern to the United States that the Egyptian government decided to come down hard on a liberal blogger. Nevertheless, in condemning Suleiman’s treatment, Washington should not make the content of what he wrote its primary concern. U.S. officials — both in condemning such treatment and articulating a policy for internet freedom in the Middle East — should instead uphold the principle attributed to Voltaire: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

That principle extends to criticism of Egypt and Jordan’s ties with the United States and Israel, as well as to blogs written by young members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and articles spreading falsehoods about the U.S. occupation in Iraq. The one exception should be speech that incites violence or is grossly and morally offensive — an exception that exists in U.S. law as well. That exception should not be an excuse that authorities use to stifle any speech they consider offensive to government interests, however.

Conclusion

As President Bush’s democracy agenda in the Middle East falters amid difficulties in Iraq, the American public and U.S. policymakers should not lose sight of the fact that a freer, more open Middle East remains in the long-term interests of the United States. Pan-Arab satellite stations, text messaging, and blogs have gone a long way toward increasing freedom of expression in the Arab world, with little or no encouragement needed from Washington. “The new Arab sphere is a genuine public sphere,” writes American political scientist Marc Lynch, “characterized by self-conscious, open, and contentious political argument before a vast but discrete audience.”

Such argument ultimately benefits the Middle East and the United States alike. When, in fall 2006, Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas posted videos of police officers beating and sodomizing a bus driver, this served U.S. interests by giving diplomats leverage to pressure Cairo on human rights issues. It is equally important to realize that, like the pan-Arab television networks, blogs and bloggers are here to stay. Political speech on the internet will only grow more prominent in the years to come. The United States is better off embracing this trend than joining those regimes engaged in fruitless attempts to reverse the new wave of free speech spreading throughout the region.

Well worth reading. Read it all here.

We hope the White House is reading it too.