1 edit
@Rajk999 saidMaybe where you're from it doesn't, but it clearly does in the US.
Yeah .. free speech does not include support for terrorists organisations.
If someone says "free Palestine" and the government does not like that message and chooses to punish that person, that's not good. Preventing this type of punishment is quite literally the reason why free speech laws were created.
@wildgrass saidIt all depends on what the term "Free Palestine" means, and in what situation it is used. What is your interpretation of the term?
Maybe where you're from it doesn't, but it clearly does in the US.
If someone says "free Palestine" and the government does not like that message and chooses to punish that person, that's not good. Preventing this type of punishment is quite literally the reason why free speech laws were created.
@Rajk999 saidNo it does not depend. My interpretations, and more importantly the governments interpretation, are not relevant.
It all depends on what the term "Free Palestine" means, and in what situation it is used. What is your interpretation of the term?
Legal protections exist for someone to say that. Full stop.
@no1marauder saidIt is an interesting topic but personally my view is that in western countries it is time to recognise that allowing freedom to support terrorism leads to incitement to commit unlawful acts. Here is what Perplexity said:
Actually it does unless you're inciting imminent unlawful acts. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Not that most of the demonstrators were supporting "terrorist organizations" anyway.
Does the 1st Ammendment of the US allow for vocal support for terrorism
Answer
The First Amendment’s protection of free speech in the U.S. is extensive but not absolute, and vocal support for terrorism falls into a complex legal gray area. Here’s a breakdown of how courts and laws address this issue:
Protected vs. Unprotected Speech
Protected Advocacy:
The First Amendment generally protects abstract advocacy of political causes, even controversial ones, under the principle that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" (New York Times v. Sullivan).
For example, expressing ideological support for a group’s goals (e.g., criticizing foreign policy) is typically protected unless it directly incites violence or coordinates with unlawful acts.
Unprotected Speech:
Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that intentionally incites imminent violence (e.g., urging immediate attacks) is not protected (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
True Threats: Direct threats of violence (e.g., “I will bomb X&rdquo😉 are unprotected.
Independent Advocacy:
Speech that merely endorses a terrorist group’s ideology (e.g., “I support Hamas’ goals&rdquo😉 is protected unless it crosses into incitement or material support.
Social Media and Terrorism:
Posting pro-terrorist content online (e.g., sharing propaganda) may be protected as “independent advocacy” unless it directly coordinates with terrorist activities or recruits members.
Practical Limits
Government Surveillance: While advocating for terrorism is often legal, such speech may trigger FBI investigations or surveillance under anti-terrorism laws.
Platform Policies: Private companies (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) may ban pro-terrorist content under their terms of service, even if it’s constitutionally protected.
Conclusion
The First Amendment does not protect:
Speech that incites imminent violence.
Speech coordinated with terrorist groups (material support).
Direct threats.
However, abstract ideological support for terrorism (e.g., praising attacks as political resistance) is generally protected unless it meets the above exceptions. Courts balance free speech against national security, often deferring to Congress in terrorism-related cases
@wildgrass saidI think you are mistaken. The term Free Palestine, implies removing all Jews from the river to the sea and this means death to Jews, which is not protected under the 1st Ammendment. Google it.
No it does not depend. My interpretations, and more importantly the governments interpretation, are not relevant.
Legal protections exist for someone to say that. Full stop.
@Rajk999 saidReally? Is that what members of Jewish Voice for Peace meant when they chanted that and similar slogans?
I think you are mistaken. The term Free Palestine, implies removing all Jews from the river to the sea and this means death to Jews, which is not protected under the 1st Ammendment. Google it.
@no1marauder saidThe Jewish Voice for Peace is a radical anti-Zionist left-wing movement. If their statement or slogans meant the removal of Israel and death to Jews then Yes, they will or should not be protected under the 1st Ammendment. But chances are good is that is not what they are proposing. They want an end to the war and a 2-state solution. Both are not possible if there is terrorism.
Really? Is that what members of Jewish Voice for Peace meant when they chanted that and similar slogans?
@wildgrass saidHere is the British equivalent;
No it does not depend. My interpretations, and more importantly the governments interpretation, are not relevant.
Legal protections exist for someone to say that. Full stop.
Palestinian migrant to UK who called to 'kill all Jews' arrested
A Palestinian man was arrested after illegally crossing the English Channel into the UK on a dinghy, according to reports on Monday. Abu Wadei, in his 30s from Khan Yunis, was among 235 migrants who arrived on boats on Thursday morning. He is currently in detention after being apprehended by immigration officers.
His arrest comes after an investigation posted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which noted that he had previously attended events led by Yahya Sinwar, the late Gazan leader of Hamas who was killed by the IDF last year.
"We welcome the reported arrest of Abu Wadei," the Campaign Against Antisemitism said in a statement. "It is evident that he poses a threat to the safety of the Jewish community and to the British public more widely. Clearly he should not be at liberty in the UK. We are now asking the Home Office to confirm that this case will be expedited and we are seeking assurances on the anticipated timeframes. We are also asking why nobody seemed to have worked out who he was until our investigators exposed him."
His social media accounts show him posing with an AK-47 assault rifle and calling in a video for God to "punish the Jews and those who support them… Oh Allah, kill them all and do not leave a single one of them." "We are committed to ending small boat crossings which undermine our border security, and restoring order to the asylum system to ensure that the rules are respected and enforced," a statement from the British Home office said.
"While it is a long-standing rule that we never comment on individual cases or operational matters, the British public can be reassured that we take all steps necessary at all times to protect the nation’s security."
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/[WORD TOO LONG]
@no1marauder saidThe article is disingenuous.
Not with Trump and the right wing that is. A blistering article from the Intercept:
"Columbia University could hardly have been more draconian in the last year and a half since students began speaking out against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
In early November 2023, four months before the Columbia Gaza solidarity encampment even began, the university banned its chapters ...[text shortened]... 3f9189e9f010fce
(That was real "cancel culture" not the pretend ones right wingers scream about).
I'll start with saying that I DON'T agree with pulling Columbia's funding.
Still... this wasn't about free speech and people chanting.
For months on end, Jews were terrified to walk across the Columbia campus, especially wearing religious symbols, for fear of the constant targeted verbal assaults, harassment and many incidents of physical attacks.
I had no reason to be on that campus anyway, but friends and colleagues who knew Jews at Columbia were unanimous in that they had to lie low and hide their Jewishness in order to stay safe.
100% of the Jews I knew who were considering applying to Columbia have changed their minds.
Chanting and demonstrating isn't the point.
These are hardly right wing sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/21/us/columbia-university-jewish-students-protests/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/nyregion/columbia-protests-antisemitism.html
https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card/columbia-university
https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-gottheimer-goldman-moskowitz-and-manning-stand-with-jewish-students-at-columbia-university
@Rajk999 saidThis article clearly shows that deporting someone for political speech is illegal and unconstitutional.https://theintercept.com/2025/03/10/mahmoud-khalil-palestine-columbia-immigration-deport/
Great news... send those jokers home. Iran does not allow any public support for Israel either.
Here is the story. He was arrested and will be deported:
[i]A pro-Palestinian activist who played a prominent role in Columbia University protests against the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza was detained in New York on Saturday evening, his lawyer has said. The arrest of Mahm ...[text shortened]... student-protest-leader/ar-AA1ABSU5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=10aa82bca245412eb4cf2da599656de0&ei=15
@sh76 said"many incidents of physical attacks" seems to have been one where someone was hit on the hand; at least that's the only instance described in your articles.
The article is disingenuous.
I'll start with saying that I DON'T agree with pulling Columbia's funding.
Still... this wasn't about free speech and people chanting.
For months on end, Jews were terrified to walk across the Columbia campus, especially wearing religious symbols, for fear of the constant targeted verbal assaults, harassment and many incidents of physical at ...[text shortened]... s/release-gottheimer-goldman-moskowitz-and-manning-stand-with-jewish-students-at-columbia-university
The CNN one contains statements like this: "Columbia students organizing in solidarity with Palestine – including Jewish students – have faced harassment, doxxing, and now arrest by the NYPD. These are the main threats to the safety of Jewish Columbia students,” Jonathan Ben-Menachem, a PhD student, told CNN.
“On the other hand, student protesters have led interfaith joint prayers for several days now, and Passover Seder will be held at the Gaza Solidarity Encampment tomorrow,” he went on. “Saying that student protesters are a threat to Jewish students is a dangerous smear.”"
True, there are some complaints of "anti-semitic" statements but these all seem to be ones with First Amendment protection even if obnoxious:
"The rabbi sent the message after videos circulated showing a man outside the university saying, “Never forget the seventh of October,” and “that will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10 more times, not 100 more times, not 1,000 more times, but 10,000 times!”
A video taken on the university’s campus Saturday night also shows a small group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators chanting, [deleted] Israel. Israel is a [deleted],” while waving the Palestinian flag."
Of course, the ADL might not be "right wing" but they are hardly impartial. From that article:
"While the University suspended both SJP and JVP in November 2023, students have continued to organize, call for University divestment from Israel and promote teach-ins, walk-outs, and protests." How shocking! And it cites with approval:
"In September 2024, the University introduced new policies prohibiting the use of terms like "Zionist" when employed to target Jews or Israelis." Huh? You can't call supporters of Israel "Zionists" or risk disciplinary measures?
None of the so-called "anti-semitism" justifies the extreme reaction of right wingers and the university administrators.
@Rajk999 saidA Federal Judge has blocked any deportation of Khalil unless and until a court rules it legal. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-blocks-trump-administration-from-deporting-pro-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil/ar-AA1ADQGA?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Great news... send those jokers home. Iran does not allow any public support for Israel either.
Here is the story. He was arrested and will be deported:
[i]A pro-Palestinian activist who played a prominent role in Columbia University protests against the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza was detained in New York on Saturday evening, his lawyer has said. The arrest of Mahm ...[text shortened]... student-protest-leader/ar-AA1ABSU5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=10aa82bca245412eb4cf2da599656de0&ei=15
I'm with the ACLU statement unless it can be shown Khalil provided actual "material support" to a terrorist organization:
"“This arrest is unprecedented, illegal, and un-American. The federal government is claiming the authority to deport people with deep ties to the U.S. and revoke their green cards for advocating positions that the government opposes. To be clear: The First Amendment protects everyone in the U.S. The government’s actions are obviously intended to intimidate and chill speech on one side of a public debate. The government must immediately return Mr. Khalil to New York, release him back to his family, and reverse course on this discriminatory policy.”
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-strongly-condemns-unlawful-arrest-and-detention-of-columbia-student-activist
The legal definition of "material support" is:
"the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A
Being a "Hamas sympathizer", even if true, is not legal grounds for deportation if all you do is say nice things about it.
@no1marauder saidIts a bit more complicated than that. It appears that actively campaigning for Hamas, whichi Khalil did, can constitute material support. DeepSeek says:
The legal definition of "material support" is:
"the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, w ...[text shortened]... izer", even if true, is not legal grounds for deportation if all you do is say nice things about it.
*************************************
Material support of terrorist organizations refers to providing any form of tangible or intangible assistance to groups or individuals engaged in terrorist activities. This concept is often defined and regulated by laws in various countries, particularly in the context of counterterrorism efforts. In the United States, for example, the term is explicitly defined under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.
What Constitutes Material Support?
Material support can include a wide range of actions or resources that directly or indirectly benefit a terrorist organization. The key elements are:
Financial Support:
Providing money, donations, or financial services (e.g., transferring funds) to a terrorist organization.
Facilitating access to financial resources, such as through fundraising or money laundering.
Logistical Support:
Supplying weapons, explosives, or other equipment.
Providing transportation, safe houses, or communication tools (e.g., phones, internet access).
Training:
Offering instruction or expertise in areas such as weapons use, bomb-making, or guerrilla tactics.
Sharing knowledge or skills that could aid in carrying out terrorist activities.
Personnel:
Recruiting or providing individuals to join a terrorist organization.
Offering oneself as a member or participant in the group’s activities.
Services:
Providing legal, medical, or technical assistance that benefits the organization.
Offering propaganda support, such as creating or distributing materials that promote the group’s ideology.
Intangible Support:
Sharing expertise, advice, or strategic planning.
Providing moral support or endorsing the group’s goals, if it aids their operations.
Legal Framework in the United States
In the U.S., material support to terrorist organizations is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. These laws make it illegal to knowingly provide material support or resources to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) or individuals engaged in terrorism. Key points include:
Knowledge Requirement: The person providing support must know or intend that the support will be used for terrorist activities.
Designated Organizations: The U.S. State Department maintains a list of FTOs, and providing support to these groups is strictly prohibited.
Penalties: Violations can result in severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment (up to 20 years or more), and asset forfeiture.
Examples of Material Support
Donating money to a group designated as a terrorist organization.
Providing a terrorist group with access to encrypted communication tools.
Offering to train members of a terrorist organization in combat techniques.
Allowing a terrorist group to use a property for meetings or planning.
Controversies and Criticisms
The concept of material support has been criticized for being overly broad and potentially infringing on civil liberties. For example:
Humanitarian aid workers providing medical care or food in conflict zones may fear prosecution if their assistance inadvertently benefits a terrorist group.
Free speech concerns arise when individuals or organizations are penalized for advocating on behalf of groups designated as terrorist organizations, even if they do not directly support violent activities.
Conclusion
Material support of terrorist organizations encompasses a wide range of actions that provide tangible or intangible assistance to such groups. It is a serious offense under U.S. and international law, with significant legal consequences. However, the broad scope of these laws has sparked debates about balancing national security with individual rights and humanitarian concerns.
***************************************************
@Rajk999 saidThere will be a hearing on Wednesday. Unless the Government produces some evidence that Khalil did more than, perhaps, agree with some of Hamas' goals or even tactics, I think the Judge will order him released.
Its a bit more complicated than that. It appears that actively campaigning for Hamas, whichi Khalil did, can constitute material support. DeepSeek says:
*************************************
Material support of terrorist organizations refers to providing any form of tangible or intangible assistance to groups or individuals engaged in terrorist activities. This concept ...[text shortened]... individual rights and humanitarian concerns.
***************************************************
Trump's plans to deport "hamas sympathizers" is clearly unconstitutional as applied to those legally in the country as Khalil is and perhaps even to those who are not.