That’s “engaging in a business transaction with a designated terrorist entity”, under IEEPA. Had they been showing Al Manar without being paid by Al Manar, they’d be in the clear.

I’m vehemently skeptical of claims of the imminent destruction of the first amendment, though I’m perfectly happy with people being wary about it.

But the actual charges and the actual law don’t seem to prevent anyone from seeing Al Manar, as long as Al Manar isn’t paying the broadcaster to do it, or vice versa. If some cable operator gets Al Manar off a satellite feed and broadcasts it for money, they’re still clear under IEEPA, even though they’re making money, because that money isn’t getting to or from the Designated Terrorist Entity. (Of course, Al Manar could sue that operator for not paying them royalties, but that’s another matter; and since Al Manar is a propaganda agency, they wouldn’t do so.)

I followed the links provded and the guy was charged with providing access to the feed such that they could watch TV. Your wording might imply that they were provided access to allow themselves to provide content to the station.

Indeed, the canaries are dead

I suppose I’m right in assuming teh war on terror picks up where the war on drugs and the war on poverty left off.