| ▲ | nonethewiser 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I was accused of helping). They argued the federal law violated their first amendment rights. The court concludes that the first amendment doesn't protect your ability to provide material support including services and communication equipment and the law still stands today. Im curious. How would you argue the first amendment protects knowingly providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mindslight a day ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
As I said to your first comment: positive arguments rooted in what is aren't terribly compelling when the government has gone off the rails (unfortunately). | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | knollimar 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
not the person you replied to, but the distinction between communication equipment vs press seems pretty small, no? Unless you're just saying the court disagrees, which is fair, but yuck | |||||||||||||||||