It doesn’t take much to be accused of supporting terrorism these days. And that doesn’t just go for student activists. In recent months, dozens of lawmakers and public officials have, without evidence, insinuated that U.S. news outlets provide material support for Hamas. Some even issued thinly veiled threats to prosecute news organizations over those bogus allegations.

Their letters were political stunts. Prosecutors would never have been able to carry their burden of proof under anti-terrorism laws, and all the pandering politicians who signed the letters knew that. But next time might be different, especially if nonprofit news outlets, such as The Intercept, manage to offend the government.

There’s no reason to believe the press is exempt from overreach. 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.

  • Talaraine@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s McCarthyism all over again. God forbid someone thinks Israel is fucking up and actually says so. This kind of shit was repugnant then and it will be repugnant in the history books.

    Enjoy being on the wrong side, you intellectually stunted children.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      The House Un-Semitic Activities Committee?

      But by some crazy coincidence, everyone who’s guilty didn’t vote for a leather reality tv star

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    so we can do this but not threaten individual churches with the same when they break the terms of their exemption? great :(

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Don’t you know that “freedom of religion” means “freedom of religion to do whatever they want”?

      Roberts’s SCOTUS shoulda told you.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        ok then what is freedom of the press then 🤨

        edit: /s

        sorry to those who thought i was being serious lol

        • ALQ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          Freedom of the press to do whatever they want.

          “They,” of course, doesn’t refer to the press itself, but to the government toadies pushing this crap.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      No church has ever been antisemitic. Go ahead, try to name one!

      I meant thousand! Name one thousand! See? You can’t cuz it doesn’t exist!

      /s (in case it needs to be said)

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 months ago

    Wait, what about the ones that actually support domestic terrorists? What about the ones that are run by actual nazis?