"Web tastes freedom inside Syria, and it's bitter" – that was the headline on a recent article by New York Times journalist Robert Worth. It tells the story of a video posted on Facebook which showed Syrian teachers beating their students, and goes on to talk about the restrictions on journalists and bloggers – including the case of the 19-year-old female blogger, Tal al-Mallohi, who has been in jail since last year.

"Other Arab countries regularly jail journalists who express dissident views," Worth writes, "but Syria may be the most restrictive of all."

Well, Syria is certainly a contender for the title but, as The Angry Arab blog points out: "What about Tunisia, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, and Saudi Arabia? Wait. I forgot. Pro-US dictatorships don't count ..."

The problem here, though, is not just the double standards of the New York Times (along with other sections of the western media) in focusing more heavily on the abuses of regimes that are deemed to be hostile towards the US (and Israel); there are also double standards when it comes to freedom of speech.

When a female teenage blogger – the sort of person Americans can easily relate to – gets locked up, it's further evidence of the Syrian regime's tyranny. But when a bearded cleric is jailed for his remarks on TV, it's seen less as a restriction on his freedom of speech than as a sign that the Syrian regime is getting tough on religious extremism.

The arabicpress blog comments:

To highlight the predominant narrative of western news outlets, take for example the case of Shaykh Kuki – a conservative Syrian cleric who was arrested by Syrian authorities after appearing on al-Jazeera defending the niqab while his opponent fired insults at Bashar al-Asad. (See here.) 

Shaykh Kuki has since been released from prison, but his story – unlike the Syrian blogger currently in jail or the heroic Facebook user – did not possess the elements deemed attractive by most western news outlets, even though it could clearly be classified as a violation of "freedom of speech". 

Instead, Kuki’s story exists somewhere outside the narrative of political salvation through media and somewhere inside the other much-reported paradigm of the Syrian "crackdown" on "Islamists". (Also reported by the NY Times.)

Syria is not the only example. In Egypt, too, crackdowns on Islamists fit one paradigm while crackdowns on the "nice" people fit another. Similarly, nobody (apart from those affected) seems much concerned about the suppression of "unauthorised" fatwas in Saudi Arabia, and the resulting closures of websites. But they ought to be concerned.

Freedom of expression is too important a principle to be used for political point-scoring. There may be lines to be drawn on hate speech and incitement to violence but if you believe in the principle it has to be applied consistently. That means defending the rights of those you dislike and disagree with as much as those you like and agree with.