> 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
> 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...)