There is no international consensus on the legal definition of terrorism.
For the purposes of this lawsuit, the only relevant bit of information is whether any of the organizations using Twitter appear on the United States' list of designated terrorist organizations, as determined by the State Department. Neither my nor your personal feelings about any of the organizations involved or not involved matter.
Personally, I'm wondering how they're going to differentiate between an 'official' account owned by an organization and an account operated by a supporter of an organization. Providing services directly to a terrorist organization is one thing; trying to restrict the speech of a supporter of terrorist organizations is another.
> Providing services directly to a terrorist organization is one thing; trying to restrict the speech of a supporter of terrorist organizations is another.
In the context of US law - is there much difference? Doesn't the law just count publicity and vocal support as aid?
The UK doesn't have anything like a first amendment protection of free speech. So it's much easier[1] over here for this kind of thing to be blocked. That does lead to some weird situations - for a few years leaders of political groups appeared on news broadcasts with their voices dubbed by actors[2]. (Something that ended in 1994.)
Comments
There is no international consensus on the legal definition of terrorism.
For the purposes of this lawsuit, the only relevant bit of information is whether any of the organizations using Twitter appear on the United States' list of designated terrorist organizations, as determined by the State Department. Neither my nor your personal feelings about any of the organizations involved or not involved matter.
Personally, I'm wondering how they're going to differentiate between an 'official' account owned by an organization and an account operated by a supporter of an organization. Providing services directly to a terrorist organization is one thing; trying to restrict the speech of a supporter of terrorist organizations is another.
> Providing services directly to a terrorist organization is one thing; trying to restrict the speech of a supporter of terrorist organizations is another.
In the context of US law - is there much difference? Doesn't the law just count publicity and vocal support as aid?
The UK doesn't have anything like a first amendment protection of free speech. So it's much easier[1] over here for this kind of thing to be blocked. That does lead to some weird situations - for a few years leaders of political groups appeared on news broadcasts with their voices dubbed by actors[2]. (Something that ended in 1994.)
[1] not saying it's good or bad, just easier.
[2] (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/broadcasters-welcome-en...)