Is it possible that maybe some are for both or against both? And that others, who want one but not the other, see key differences between the two ideas?
Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance.
The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training".
In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
I specifically said that it does include some speech. I even referred to the definition's mention of "training" — which the WaPo article you linked to calls out.
The direct assistance was still speech. Providing training to people on how to engage lawfully with the international legal system is speech. The court has not found that only speech that "expresses an idea" is protected speech.
The bill (HR 5300, Section 226) does not actually say that.
> Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.
That's an administrative hearing, not a court one. One could presumably still sue over this, but the likely end result is SCOTUS saying "nah".
FIRE or the ACLU would likely represent affected citizens for free, even if they do things that are likely over the line. They would want to see the line drawn appropriately (which in their case means in a very free speech-friendly way).
Well, that's moving the goalposts a bit. This strikes at the core of FIRE's work, and even though the ACLU has backed away from free speech a bit in recent years (based on the possible impact the speech would have on other priorities for the ACLU), I think in this case that would not be a limiting factor for them.
These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.
Sounds like a time a significant percentage of Americans would have considered to be "great" and that they would like to make those things happen again. We know for a fact they aren't pushing for similar tax rates to when America was "great". So what exactly are they referring to? Not a single conservative in existence has been banned from social media because of their passion for debating tax rates. So what is it exactly that is getting conservatives banned?
We have to dance around this bullshit for some reason. Conservatives get kicked out of social media platforms for being outright hateful bigots. If people are getting "cancelled" for being "conservative" then you're admitting that conservative ideology is far more intrinsically tied to racism and xenophobia than it is balancing budgets which is something the Republican party hasn't been able to do for half a century at least. This is the "fuck your feelings" not the "budgets must be balanced" crowd after all.
I think what we're seeing here is that conservatives are learning how to weaponize "politically correct" language. It doesn't matter one bit how many conservatives not just online but elected fucking officials say terrible shit. They are quite happy to cheer on the assassination of elected Democrats and the assault of a Democratic senator's husband. They will make jokes about it just being a jilted gay lover and not the incredibly common right wing fucking nutbag that it so often ends up being. They, including Charlie Kirk, are on record calling for people like Joe Biden to be executed and we're just supposed to roll with it. But don't pay proper respects to a racist piece of shit being killed by the very thing he defended and suddenly they clutch their pearls to the point where they create databases to track folks not being properly saddened to get them "cancelled". To get cancelled from the left you have to be a sex pest or an abuser or an abject racist. But to get cancelled from the right you just have to post quotes from their dead heroes back to them.
Is it really desirable though? Sure, it might eliminate human error, but it also probably eliminate pilots saving planes. I don't think an autopilot would have put US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson.
There's also the timing. Maybe there's something specific about takeoff that makes it more likely for the failure to occur. However, assuming there's not, then the odds of this occuring at takeoff (the worst possible time) instead of any other time are extremely low. Takeoff accounts for a tiny percent of the plane's operation.
As explained in the text, take off loads aka g force from the plane rotating. That's the feeling that you get when the plane takes off and it pushes you into your seat.
I personally don't buy it. Why then did the switches just work after being toggled. Why did the switches go to shutoff one after the other. Why did the pilot question why the other pilot set it to shutoff?
Then there's the catastrophic nature of the timing, 10 seconds earlier and they would have skidded off the runway. 10 seconds later, the engines would've relit and regained enough thrust. If there's one thing pilots are experts in, it's what to do to get yourself killed in your airframe of choice. This was calculated down to the second.
Something else that's going on, there's a bot network alive and well on twitter blaiming boeing and all things under the sun except pilot mass murder. Yet occams razor, a mentally ill pilot shut off the fuel at the right time to doom the aircraft seems tragically possible.
