Speaking of intimidation, this post from Joe’s Dart Blog has so upset the Guardian that they’ve not only condemned the New Jersey blogger, but the whole blogosphere for “obsessively personal attacks”:

Rightwing bloggers from the US, where the Guardian has a large online following, were behind the targeting last week of a trainee Guardian journalist who wrote a comment piece which they did not care for about the London bombings.
The story is a demonstration of the way the ‘blogosphere’ can be used to mount obsessively personalised attacks at high speed.
Within hours, Dilpazier Aslam was being accused on the internet of “violence” and belonging to a “terrorist organisation” – both completely untrue charges.

There’s much quibbling about the difference between “anti-Semitism” and overt violence, and while I agree that there is such a distinction, I’m afraid that history is being forgotten.
As Joe reminds us, the ferocious anti-Semitism of groups like Hizb ut Tahrir cannot be seen in a vacuum:

Contrary to the assertions of the anonymous Guardian defender, Aslam did not belong merely to an “anti-Semetic” political group. Although it would be politically correct to call all Islamic Fundamentalist groups that, it is a deadly misnomer. In these times, eastern Islamic Fundamentalist groups which preach anti-Jewish sentiment and call for the deaths of all Jews are actively pursuing that goal. The Guardian seems content to whisper to itself, “It’s just talk… just politics,” but anyone who had one eye open on 7/7 knows otherwise.

Is it “all talk”? And “all politics”?
That was the defense of Julius Streicher, but he still ended up on the gallows, because his words were seen by the Nuremburg Tribunal as a crime against humanity:

Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.

Even though he was the editor of a popular newspaper called “Der Sturmer,” I’d be most hesitant to call Julius Streicher a “media executive” or even a “media figure,” because this was all so long ago.
However, consider the much more recent case of media executives in Rwanda:

The United Nations tribunal in Arusha has convicted three former media executives of being key figures in the media campaign to incite ethnic Hutus to kill Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.
It is widely believed that so-called hate media had a significant part to play in the genocide, during which some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died.
There is also little doubt that its legacy continues to exert a strong influence on the country.
The most prominent hate media outlet was the private radio station, Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines.
It was established in 1993 and opposed peace talks between the government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and the Tutsi-led rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which now forms the government.
After President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down, the radio called for a “final war” to “exterminate the cockroaches.”

While I am not certain of the precise point where anti-Semitism becomes the (illegal) advocacy of genocide, I don’t see why the intervention of 60 years since the hanging of Julius Streicher would create a modern exemption for those calling for “Death to the Jews!” It must be noted that Hizb Ut Tahrir — the organization that the Guardian reporter belongs — has (according to the BBC) crossed the line from opinion to such calls for violence:

[Hizb Ut Tahrir] promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people.

It’s tough to dismiss such rhetoric as “mere” anti-Semitism.
And it isn’t as if Jews aren’t being killed right now.
MORE: Roger L. Simon calls the Guardian’s attacks on Joe’s Dartblog a “sign of our media times.” Unfortunately, he’s right. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)