4 ms·
Are we going after free speech now?
by bjourne 1mo ago
Are we going after free speech now?
- nonethewiser 1mo agoHolder 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 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 1mo agoSo 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.
- ModernMech 1mo agoNot only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.
- hammock 1mo agoI don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?
- inigyou 1mo agoThe government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.
- nonethewiser 1mo agoWhere does it say that?
- bjourne 1mo agoI'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.
- inigyou 1mo agoThe 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.
- inigyou 1mo agoOf course, Hacker News evidently can't fathom this basic truth.