Isn't it just as likely they are using facebook, instagram, and tiktok?

quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I checked for an official PKK YouTube channel. I found that they don’t have one as they’re a designated foreign terrorist organization* and Google complies with that designation by not allowing them an official presence. Unsure about the others but I doubt any of those companies would allow an official account. Probably individuals that belong to that group have accounts but I don’t know that for sure.

* I did not make the designation, I know nothing about the PKK, I am only referencing it.

▲

nonethewiser 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

beej71 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

And political neutrality isn't going to save anyone. Political alignment with the US government is what they're after.

▲

bjourne 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are we going after free speech now?

▲

nonethewiser 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project ruled that knowingly providing material support to designated terrorist organizations is not protected by the first amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1

But I'm curious about your take on this. How would you argue the first amendment protects this?

▲

inigyou 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

So it's trivial that if you are the government and you want to arrest someone for speech, you first call them a terrorist organisation and then you can arrest them for speech? Ridiculous.

▲

hammock 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

The government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.

	▲	nonethewiser 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Where does it say that?

▲

ModernMech 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.

▲

bjourne a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm uninterested in bot answers. You claimed label X applies so consequence Y applies.

Useless.

Why is providing people with the means to express themselves to an audience wrong? Please think for yourself; don't resort to labels.

▲

inigyou 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The USA has never had free speech. There's not one time in its history when the government wasn't trying to force people it disagreed with to shut up.

	▲	inigyou a day ago \| parent [-]
		Of course, Hacker News evidently can't fathom this basic truth.