Vice guide to dating
It could draw a very tight line around what counts as explicit coordination with a terrorist group on the Internet (although this would not help Vice or other news organizations in direct contact with terrorists).
More importantly, it could draw a brighter line between speech delivered as advice on technical matters and speech that merely contributes to the circulation of radical, violent, and hostile ideas.
(Now imagine you are a young, idealistic, Salafi-inclined Western Muslim.)As it happens, the Supreme Court has a chance to take another look at the material-support statute and walk back its own jurisprudence, at least as it pertains to speech.
That decision means, for example, that Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center could be in violation of federal law for giving peacemaking advice to groups on the State Department’s FTO list.
But, as the lead prosecutor informed the jury, “One way to provide material support is providing yourself as personnel.
Another way to provide material support is to provide your friends as personnel, or people who might read the translations, might read the propaganda that you put out on the Internet that you want to go fight” (my emphasis).
America has faced, and is facing, bigger challenges than jihadist ideology.
It’s possible to fight terrorism without shutting down all pro-jihadist speech.
What about journalists like Dairieh and media outlets like Vice?