1)
There is a difference between legal immunity and the ability to raise funds -- for which she was banned according to the letter.
2)
Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
3)
Ships in the water circling to pick up people certainly makes them take riskier actions, or pushes the risk threshold low enough that people are willing to try.
I personally think that an open border solution would be much better for everyone. I also think that international law is valuable, and painting this situation in which these people are actually being transported by trafficking rings for at least some portion of their trip is not as black and white as you portray it. I'm personally against a modern day work and sex slave pipeline from Africa to Europe, and there is a non-negligible chance that that's what is happening here.
> 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.
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.
2) Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
3) Ships in the water circling to pick up people certainly makes them take riskier actions, or pushes the risk threshold low enough that people are willing to try.
I personally think that an open border solution would be much better for everyone. I also think that international law is valuable, and painting this situation in which these people are actually being transported by trafficking rings for at least some portion of their trip is not as black and white as you portray it. I'm personally against a modern day work and sex slave pipeline from Africa to Europe, and there is a non-negligible chance that that's what is happening here.