Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.

Fundraising to support a non-speech activity is not purely speech. e.g., if the activity is criminal, fundraising to support it is also criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on the planet, including those with the strongest free speech protections.

View on HN

This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.

Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.

> This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.

And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.

It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make

> It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make

The purpose with patreon being to fund her "journalistic activities" which included the legally dubious action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com