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 20 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.