6 ms·

Isn't it just as likely they are using facebook, instagram, and tiktok?

by kraken_cult 19d ago

nonethewiser 19d ago
[flagged]
- beej71 19d ago
  And political neutrality isn't going to save anyone. Political alignment with the US government is what they're after.
- bjourne 19d ago
  Are we going after free speech now?
  - inigyou 19d ago
    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.
    - inigyou 19d ago
      Of course, Hacker News evidently can't fathom this basic truth.
  - nonethewiser 19d ago
    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 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 19d ago
      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.
      - ModernMech 19d ago
        Not only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.
      - hammock 19d ago
        I don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?
        inigyou 19d ago
        The government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.
        nonethewiser 18d ago
        Where does it say that?
    - bjourne 19d ago
      I'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.
quickthrowman 19d ago
I checked for an official PKK YouTube channel. I found that they don’t have one as they’re a designated foreign terrorist organization* and Google complies with that designation by not allowing them an official presence. Unsure about the others but I doubt any of those companies would allow an official account. Probably individuals that belong to that group have accounts but I don’t know that for sure. * I did not make the designation, I know nothing about the PKK, I am only referencing it.

Isn't it just as likely they are using facebook, instagram, and tiktok?

nonethewiser 19d ago

[flagged]

beej71 19d ago
And political neutrality isn't going to save anyone. Political alignment with the US government is what they're after.
bjourne 19d ago
Are we going after free speech now?
- inigyou 19d ago
  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.
  - inigyou 19d ago
    Of course, Hacker News evidently can't fathom this basic truth.
- nonethewiser 19d ago
  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 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 19d ago
    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.
    - ModernMech 19d ago
      Not only that, you can disappear them to a remote location and torture them forever without charging them for any crime whatsoever.
    - hammock 19d ago
      I don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?
      - inigyou 19d ago
        The government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.
        nonethewiser 18d ago
        Where does it say that?
  - bjourne 19d ago
    I'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.

quickthrowman 19d ago

I checked for an official PKK YouTube channel. I found that they don’t have one as they’re a designated foreign terrorist organization* and Google complies with that designation by not allowing them an official presence. Unsure about the others but I doubt any of those companies would allow an official account. Probably individuals that belong to that group have accounts but I don’t know that for sure. * I did not make the designation, I know nothing about the PKK, I am only referencing it.