3 ms·

Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and the

Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and there is also a First Amendment carveout just below the definition. I wonder if this would have legs in the current Congress. Probably depends on how popular the other parts of the bill are (I have no idea what it's about, but I saw there's lots of other stuff in there). 1: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300/text#H40A6BC763ED742C688171EC594820D97 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support"… That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.
Miner49er 1y ago
No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/court-upholds-ban-on-terrorrelated-aid/c652dfbe-39cb-49eb-8b8a-139fc388a4a9/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
- kelthuzad 1y ago
  >No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c... Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance. The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training". In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
  - slt2021 1y ago
    Who is the judge? Looks like there is no due process, just the discretion of Marco Rubio is enough to revoke passport/visa
    - Miner49er 1y ago
      Yeah, the courts don't even have to involved. All you need to do is be charged, and they can revoke the passport, even if charges are later dropped.
    - apparent 1y ago
      The bill says that it can be challenged in court. But in the first instance, the Secretary of State would make the decision.
      - stickfigure 1y ago
        How many tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees does it cost to challenge something like this in court?
        apparent 1y ago
        FIRE or the ACLU would likely represent affected citizens for free, even if they do things that are likely over the line. They would want to see the line drawn appropriately (which in their case means in a very free speech-friendly way).
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        They only have so much money and lawyer hours.
        apparent 1y ago
        Well, that's moving the goalposts a bit. This strikes at the core of FIRE's work, and even though the ACLU has backed away from free speech a bit in recent years (based on the possible impact the speech would have on other priorities for the ACLU), I think in this case that would not be a limiting factor for them. These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support"… That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.

Miner49er 1y ago

No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/court-upholds-ban-on-terrorrelated-aid/c652dfbe-39cb-49eb-8b8a-139fc388a4a9/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...

kelthuzad 1y ago
>No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c... Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance. The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training". In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
- slt2021 1y ago
  Who is the judge? Looks like there is no due process, just the discretion of Marco Rubio is enough to revoke passport/visa
  - Miner49er 1y ago
    Yeah, the courts don't even have to involved. All you need to do is be charged, and they can revoke the passport, even if charges are later dropped.
  - apparent 1y ago
    The bill says that it can be challenged in court. But in the first instance, the Secretary of State would make the decision.
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      How many tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees does it cost to challenge something like this in court?
      - apparent 1y ago
        FIRE or the ACLU would likely represent affected citizens for free, even if they do things that are likely over the line. They would want to see the line drawn appropriately (which in their case means in a very free speech-friendly way).
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        They only have so much money and lawyer hours.
        apparent 1y ago
        Well, that's moving the goalposts a bit. This strikes at the core of FIRE's work, and even though the ACLU has backed away from free speech a bit in recent years (based on the possible impact the speech would have on other priorities for the ACLU), I think in this case that would not be a limiting factor for them. These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.