Criticizing Israel? Nonprofit Media Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status
Criticizing Israel? Nonprofit Media Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status
theintercept.com
Criticizing Israel? Nonprofit Media Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Without Due Process
6 comments
-
-
Where is a president that would veto this shit on sight? Where's Bernie?
-
-
Cant veto something that would most likely be veto proof
and unless it was attached to must pass legislation president biden would most likely veto it too
-
-
-
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary Existing laws on material support for terrorism have long been criticized for their overbreadth and potential for abuse, not only against free speech but also against humanitarian aid providers.
A recent letter from 135 rights organizations opposing the bill highlighted efforts to revoke the tax-exempt status of, or otherwise retaliate against, pro-Palestine student groups.
In their recent letters, elected officials called for terrorism investigations of the New York Times, Reuters, CNN, and the Associated Press, relying on allegations that those outlets bought photographs from Palestinian freelancers who covered Hamas’s October 7 attacks.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., parroted HonestReporting’s disinformation in multiple letters, while 15 congressional representatives demanded that the news outlets provide information — potentially including source identities and communications — regarding the freelancers, threatening to issue subpoenas.
Last month, President Joe Biden ignored civil liberties advocates and signed into law a bill that would allow intelligence agencies to enlist any “service provider” to help the U.S. spy on foreigners.
Those who claim a second Donald Trump term would mark the end of democracy need to stop passing overbroad and unnecessary new laws handing him, and future authoritarians, brand new ways to harass and silence journalists who don’t toe the line.
Saved 82% of original text. :::
6 comments
Love free speech, and the very normal relationship the US politicians have to its client state
Back when Substack was getting grief for letting Nazis on, a bunch of people told me that making dangerous extremism illegal was absolutely the right thing to do and necessary, and a bunch of them asserted that Nazi speech was already forbidden on some level in the US.
I told them that any legal restrictions on speech will instantly be used, vigorously, against what the people in power think is “dangerous extremism,” and not with objective fairness against the stuff that’s actually dangerous extremism, and so it’s a bad idea to have those restrictions.
Every single one of them lectured me confidently about how that’s not how it works and I was wrong.
Just show them this.