Could you give reasons why this is not a valid argument?
He demonstrates a reasonable defense against Psychological warefare, and what you do?
You rename it, and say it is an extension of an analogy.
What the hell are you talking about?
Is it not a precedential instance?
Please note the all the Anglo-american law is based on the pragmatics of precedential instances
Could you give any reasons what is wrong about precedential cases applying to similar circumstances?
Man, is this bullshit necessary? and for whom?.

Why did US ban any interviews with El-Kaida speakers?
In interviews, like in any other suggestive circumstances, one can be induced by the speaker's retorics and suggestions.
Giving a propagandist broadcasting resources to deliver his messages is nothing but allowing his propaganda to capture his target audience

Are you out of your mind?

An interview can be far more effective than a monologue, once assuming the format of a lively dialogue

It contains turns - to encompass wider scope - and
emphases for focusing. These, mind you, are not self-initiated but initiated by the other person, to capture attention and to gain access for propoganda through current issues of interest

And furthermore, it withdraws attention from questions not asked, such as "why did you respond with war to Barak offers of much more than initially agreed upon"

Since it gives the illusion of responding to current
agenda, it has an "actuality value" which can still endow a worn-out propaganda with a disguise of confronting important issues.

The British people was rather confident in his war efforts to defend its freedoms
and values
So were the Americans.
Nevertheless, free-speech rights for the enemy's views
was not part of the war effort, since
words can sometimes themselves be a hostile act
Please note that even the worst scum of earth and the
greatest bastard can
often utter eloquent claims to confuse its audience