What about software projects (such as anonymous messengers) with political stances, who state the kinds of people their software is intended to help? Is that material assistance?

How is Signal not providing material assistance if someone alerts them that “terrorists” are now using their platform?

Sanctioning providers who host political groups, even if it’s extreme politics, is something new. It’s reminiscent of the Bush admin going after Indymedia, which was a huge violation of free speech and was obviously politically targeted. It’s extra ridiculous because we fund and supply the PKK (via their YPG affiliates), which makes this look like a fig leaf for the real goal of disrupting left politics. I don’t like the radical left, but I don’t think this is constitutionally allowed.

I feel like we need some bold lines drawn around this to make sure this power doesn’t get misused.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

It’s all about mens rea. The law distinguishes between people who provide services to anyone, and people who intentionally market their service to criminals, even under coded language. In this case the provider didn’t just allegedly market themselves to them; they also actually excluded others.

▲

iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-]

Fair, I guess, although again I’m uncomfortable with how the PKK link appears to be used as an excuse for political suppression. I think in cases like this, it would be best to order the provider to discontinue services to the specific entity in question before resorting to sanctions, since they provided services to other political groups that were not listed as “terrorists”. I’m not sure if we have any information about whether this happened or not.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

I suspect they had plenty of notice that they were on thin ice, and had they consulted attorneys, their attorneys would certainly have advised them to stop. I know I would have.

Criminal organizations tend not to care what their lawyers think around behaving well; they primarily seek them out for cover after they're already in trouble.

▲

iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-]

They may have, they may not have. Impossible to say unless and until we get more detail.

If they were warned and did not listen, that was irresponsible of them due to the impact on other organizations. If they weren’t warned, the government was irresponsibly severe given the impact on legal speech and political activity. Hopefully a journalist can dig into the details beyond press releases, as I doubt that either side will offer an unbiased view.

▲

otterley a day ago | parent [-]

Everyone can use Gmail, Fastmail, Protonmail, Signal, WhatsApp, or many other providers free of charge provided they follow the providers' ToS. There's no shortage of service providers out there that are open to all. People can also operate their own servers if they so choose.

▲

iamnothere a day ago | parent [-]

That wouldn’t excuse an overly harsh, unannounced crackdown (if that’s what happened) that impacts uninvolved political groups. The government is free to decide how it goes about enforcement, as long as it remains within the law, but it needs to defer in the interest of protecting legal political speech, even if it is disfavored speech. This is a normative rather than a legally mandated practice, but it’s important to defer towards exercise of free political speech unless there’s an urgent reason not to do so. We don’t know either way in this case, but based on past actions of the admin, it looks like it’s just the usual “antifa” bashing.

I don’t like the radical left either, we usually just don’t get along, but they do have a right to communicate, speak, organize, and associate, just like other groups. (Yes, including the radical right, Communists, or other common boogeymen.) And they are free to choose services designed by and for political allies if they wish.

▲

otterley a day ago | parent [-]

Conspiracy to commit crimes isn't protected political speech, though. If the service was primarily used by radical leftists for election campaigning, that'd be a different story. The Government claims it was for the former.

	▲	iamnothere a day ago \| parent [-]
		This was some users of the service, not all. In a case like this, where the entity in question hosts many political groups, the government should try to avoid actions that would affect legal political speech. Notifying the service and giving them a chance to come into compliance (by terminating service to the “terrorist” groups) should be the first step. If this was not done, it’s a problem. As a separate issue, sanctions are a blunt instrument, and frankly we are overusing them. They are quickly losing effectiveness and this is costing us credibility internationally. It’s also weakening the sanctions tool itself, leaving us with fewer options.