Al Jazeera is often criticized by, especially, American conservatives. They argue that the Middle Eastern network (run by people who were taught how to report the news at the BBC) is too anti-American, and too sympathetic towards extremists and extremist regimes. Although I understand the complaint, I have to admit that I disagree with it, at least to a degree.

Al Jazeera is certainly more pro-Muslim countries and less pro-American than most American networks. But its critics have to keep in mind that Al Jazeera is, wait for it, not an American network. It’s a network in the Middle East, for Middle Easterners (even though it has expanded its operations throughout the world these days). It’s not meant to speak to Americans, its main goal is (or was at least) to reach a Middle Eastern audience. A strongly pro-American network can, quite simply, not succeed in such an environment.

Perhaps more importantly though, I watch Al Jazeera English every now and then and I’ve got to say that this news network - the Arabic version is obviously more anti-American, more biased, etc. - isn’t any different from, say, CNN International. In fact, I - a European conservative who is strongly pro-America - favor Al Jazeera International over its counterpart at CNN. CNN International is, in my experience, more anti-American, less objective, and the quality of its reports and journalists is pathetic (compared to AJI that is).

That does not mean that all the charges against Al Jazeera, and especially its Arabic version, are unfounded. They’re not. The English language channel might be of a high quality (yes, it really is), but that does not mean that it’s Arabic version is the same, nor does it mean that those working for AJI are always unbiased. No, some people have agendas of their own, especially those working for the Arabic channel.

Speaking about which; Al Jazeera is under fire in Morocco these days. The Moroccan government charges that Al Jazeera’s bureau chief in Morocco, Hassan Rachidi, purposefully lied about a protest in Morocco. It seems that the protest ran out of hand; several police officers and protesters were wounded. Rachidi reported, however, that quite some protesters were killed by the regime. This while the government made clear to Rachidi that this was not the case.

So the prosecutor has filed charges against him. It’s a complicated case, especially for those who - like me - believe in the freedom of speech. However, this isn’t about an opinion, this case is about willfully lying (possibly in order to create social unrest). Now, here comes the universalism vs. practicalism part into play (once again): in a perfect world, we would condemn the Moroccan government. If Morocco was a Western country, we would probably value the freedom of speech over honesty.

But it’s not. Morocco is not a Western country. I doesn’t have the same dangers we have. No, it has a different kind of society, and different people pose a threat. In such a country, in such an environment, the freedom of speech sometimes loses from social order and honesty. In this particular case, then, it’s important for the prosecutor to find out whether the Al Jazeera man should have known better and did know better, or whether it was a mistake. From the looks of it, it wasn’t a mistake; it seems that he knew better, or at the very least should have known better. In such a case, the freedom of speech has to make a step back. In some countries at least.