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
replyBut I'm curious about your take on this. How would you argue the first amendment protects this?
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.
replyI don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?
replyThe government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.
replyNot only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.
replyI'm uninterested in bot answers. You claimed label X applies so consequence Y applies.
replyUseless.
Why is providing people with the means to express themselves to an audience wrong? Please think for yourself; don't resort to labels.
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.
reply