I have a problem with limiting any sort of speech...but I'm not an expert on this and I wouldnt be able to formulate a proper opinion.
Are you guys in the same category as "cant yell fire in a crowd"?
Ideally, it would seem that no speech should be banned, rather individuals should be responsible to themselves in this regard. But I believe they don't allow broadcast of a Neonazi channel. It all depends on the 'weight' of your speech. Your speech has more 'weight' as the chances of criticism of your platform decreases. So it might be considered whether free speech means expressing 'anything anywhere' (1) or 'anything somewhere' (2).
It's difficult to say whether the first category should be punished. But in the case of "yelling fire", the immedeate reaction of the crowd causes an atmosphere where critcism of your 'speech' is impossible (like saying "there is no fire"), which makes speech in such a condition punishable. This consideration might belong to the 'category' you mentioned.
However, this example is often cited to ban even 'type 2' free speech that I mentioned above, so I wouldn't associate myself to the 'don't yell fire' crowd. The best answer considering the prevalent abuse of this example is "what if there really is fire?".
I don't think Islam channel should be immedeatly banned, rather it should be defamed using equal or better platforms to create an enviornment where it no longer thrives. Trying to ban it would encourage those who are looking to curb free speech by citing lame examples.
Btw, here is a debate on free speech between Tharoor and Hitchens.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E9C251F39451B64E&search_query=hitchens+tharoor+debate