|
| ▲ | 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 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. |
|
