#Tax-Examption

[xtruss]

Criticizing The Illegal Regime of Zionist Terrorist 🐖 Isra-hell? Nonprofit Media Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Without Due Process

A New Anti-Terrorism Bill Would Allow The Government To Take Away Vital Tax Exemptions From Nonprofit News Outlets.

— Seth Stern | May 10, 2024 | The Intercept

“Scrotums Licker of the Illegal Regime of The Terrorist Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,” speaks during a news conference in the U.S. Capitol on March 21, 2024. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

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.

That’s because a bill that passed the House with broad bipartisan support in April — after which a companion bill was immediately introduced in the Senate — would empower the secretary of the Treasury to revoke the nonprofit status of any organization deemed “terrorist supporting.” This week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced it as an amendment to must-pass legislation to renew the Federal Aviation Administration’s authorities. While it didn’t make the cut (the Senate didn’t vote on any of the dozens of proposed amendments), it’s likely to make its way to the Senate floor in another form soon.

Funding terrorism is already illegal, but the new bill would let the government avoid the red tape required for criminal prosecutions or official terrorist designations.

You might think actionable support of terrorism is limited to intentional, direct contributions to terror groups. You’d be mistaken. 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.

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.

The feigned outrage originated with a spurious accusation, from an organization ironically calling itself HonestReporting, that those pictures evidenced that the photographers who took them had advance knowledge of the massacre. Otherwise how (other than, say, TV or the internet) would they have known where to go?

HonestReporting then reasoned that the news outlets that bought the pictures may have been in on it as well — because, of course, when an international news giant buys a picture from someone on its vast roster of freelancers, it’s reasonable to impute the freelancer’s alleged sins all the way up the chain.

HonestReporting eventually walked back that convoluted theory, admitting it had no evidence and was merely asking questions. After forcing the news outlets to publicly deny having ties to Hamas, HonestReporting said it believed them.

But that didn’t stop U.S. officials from surmising that the fact some Palestinian freelancers in Gaza had contacts with Hamas officials — which should not be surprising, given that Hamas is the governing authority in the besieged enclave — made anyone who hired them terrorism financiers.

And it gets even worse. One of the letters — signed by over a dozen state attorneys general — floated the theory that the outlets’ reporting could itself evidence support for Hamas. As the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (another nonprofit news site, operated by Freedom of the Press Foundation, where I work) put it:

The letter also highlighted that “material support” for terrorist groups — both a federal and state crime — can include “writing and distributing publications supporting the organization.” It did not elaborate on what would be considered support, potentially chilling any reporting that does not unequivocally condemn Hamas or unilaterally support Israel.

The attorneys general then warned the outlets that they would “continue to follow your reporting to ensure that your organizations do not violate any federal or State laws by giving material support to terrorists abroad.” The writers continued: “Now your organizations are on notice. Follow the law.”

Many of those same attorneys general recently argued that “First Amendment speech and associational freedoms do not protect persons who provide material support” to terrorism. They failed to mention the Supreme Court’s skepticism that “applications of the material-support statute to speech or advocacy will survive First Amendment scrutiny … even if the Government were to show that such speech benefits foreign terrorist organizations.”

Members Of Congress have set their eyes on news outlets as well. 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.

If there is any doubt about the nonprofit bill’s backers’ intentions, consider that five of its House sponsors also signed onto a letter to the Internal Revenue Service asking how it defines antisemitism and insinuating that the IRS should deny tax-exempt status to nonprofits that “promote conduct that is counter to public policy,” even if they’re not accused of supporting terrorism at all.

Nonprofit news outlets are already struggling even without government harassment, but revocation of their tax-exempt status would be a death knell for outlets doing the kind of in-depth investigative journalism that is hardly ever profitable these days. The mere prospect would chill reporting, not only on Israel but also on U.S. foreign policy generally. And that’s not to mention the threat to nonprofit press freedom organizations that journalists depend on to protect their rights (including to not get killed in Gaza).

Unfortunately, this is just the latest piece of reckless, unnecessary “national security” legislation that puts the press at risk. 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.

As Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., explained, the law could “forc[e] an employee to insert a USB thumb drive into a server at an office they clean or guard at night.” And that office could easily be a newsroom, where journalists often talk to foreigners whose communications might interest U.S. intelligence agencies.

Is the government going to immediately start conscripting reporters to surveil their sources, or shutting down nonprofit news outlets that stray from the Israeli military’s narrative? Probably not. But history teaches that once officials are given the power to retaliate against journalists they don’t like, they inevitably will. The prospect of the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act being weaponized against journalism was also once merely hypothetical — until it wasn’t.

And let’s not forget that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee publicly fantasizes about jailing and otherwise retaliating against journalists.

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.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

You know, for someone who doesn't believe in Nothing. You really make it a big deal to make it known. It's really ironic how you're fighting against someone you don't believe in. I get it you don't believe in God, but trust me you are going to find out real soon what that disbelief is going to do to you.

LOL.

doesn't believe in Nothing

So... you recognize that I do believe in actual things.

Okay...

It's really ironic how you're fighting against someone you don't believe in.

Are you sure you're on the right blog? Are you lost? Here's the Explore page. Maybe that can help you.

Are you saying that I don't believe that...

Xianity; Islam; churches; religious tax examption; blasphemy laws; honor killings; inherited guilt; shunning; religious trauma; unearned shame; Sharia; pedophile priests; superstition; faith healing; religious fundamentalism; religious hypocrisy; creationists; science-denial; people who think it's "good" to teach children they will be burned for eternity and suffer eternal torment, people who think it's virtuous to teach kids that an invisible judge, who they can never escape, judges everything they do even their thoughts, but won't intervene even when they cry out for help, such as when their pedophile pastor is raping them (cause, you know, "free will"); immoral people who think they can imagine forgiveness from above, rather than by seeking it from the one they wronged; people so damaged and broken they think they're "nothing without" their imaginary god; people who are actually looking forward to the destruction of the world; people who can't find or create any meaning in life themselves and have to have it dictated from above; people who think that the forged, plagiarized, oral legends of people who weren't there exceed the tireless, honest, human pursuit of knowledge, even while they enjoy the benefits of the latter; immoral people, who don’t believe in thousands of gods, who think eternal torture is justified for disbelief in one particular god; people who think themselves special enough to have a “personal relationship” with the (unnecessary) “creator” of a universe consisting of billions of galaxies of billions of stars, and then call others “arrogant” not to believing the same...

.... exist?

Cause I don't recall ever posting anything like that. I feel like I've been posting the exact opposite.

Sweetie, I know they exist. And if I didn't believe they exist, you have certainly convinced me, as you demonstrate many of the above in spades.

==

You could have just said “I believe, unquestioningly, the con artist who reads to me cherry picked tales from my favorite book of magic that I’ve never actually read” and left it at that.

It's not "ironic." It's just that you're so trapped in your tiny little confirmation bubble that you've gotten your panties in a tizzy about a strawman, because you have no idea whatsoever what a non-believer thinks. Since you cannot bring yourself to step down off your pedestal to bother asking.

Non-believers don't give a shit about your immoral, plagiarized, composite blood-god. Your god is safely trapped inside the pages of the book of horrific fairytales and barbarous fables that invented it.

They care about your beliefs, and your believers, and what your believers perpetrate in the name of your beliefs. All the destruction, all the despair, all the suffering, all the atrocities, all the lives ruined in the name of an imaginary goblin in the sky who isn't there.

Human lives destroyed over literally nothing.

And all you have is the vacuous equivalent of "haha, you're mad at Santa!"

No, sweetie. Your priests and pastors are lying to you about non-believers as well as your god. You're misled, ignorant or dishonest.

trust me you are going to find out real soon what that disbelief is going to do to you.

Well, finally!

Your "savior" (purportedly) said he'd be back within the lifetime of those he preached to before they were all dead. Which was a lie. So believers have been saying "any day now" for like 2000 years.

Non-believers have been saying for centuries that all you'd have to do is get your god to show up and say "hi," just once in order to convince us that it existed, and resolve the worldwide disaster that is religious faith - where "faith" means every god exists - once and for all.

How will we know which one it is? Will it be livestreamed? Liveblogged on Twitter? Come on, you don't get to tell us about the party and then not give us the deets.

==

"Hey, since you don't believe in my Invisible Pink Unicorn, how about if I warn you that my Invisible Pink Unicorn will gore you through with her alicorn?" I mean, really?

Is this the love and kindness of your religion? Is this what it does to you? Is this how mentally destructive and morally poisonous this deranged belief is? Did that make you feel good, to threaten a total stranger? Make you feel like a good Xian?

Your own religion says that I disbelieve because it is part of your god’s will. 

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Who are you to question the will of your god in any matter? To meddle in his design?

Is this you honoring your commitments?

1 Peter 3:15

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Is this your meekness? Threatening instead of fulfilling your obligation as a “true” Xian?

Why would I listen to someone who puts themselves so far above their own god? How can anyone even conclude you believe in this god yourself, when you deny and mock it openly?

If your fellow believers are all like you, if this is how venomous your superstitious belief system is, I'll go without, thank you very much. No wonder your religion is on the decline. Your customer service is atrocious.

And anyway, all you've actually done is telegraph that you can't prove your claim, and you have nothing better to offer than ominous, yet vague, non-specific and therefore worthless threats. You know, because an all-loving god is something that anyone should fear.

Such a smoke and mirrors performance is really all there is to your belief. It has literally no substance, which is even the defence of the believer, that their god is intangible, immaterial, undetectable, etc, etc, in ways that mean it's not real. Things that are true don't need to resort to such pathetically obvious tactics.

Which lines up neatly with the pretty but banal and intellectually empty platitudes that adorn your blog, saying nothing of consequence or merit. Whimsical musings about the chimera in whose pyre you’ve immolated your personhood.

And I get that it’s not your fault. You’re as much a victim of your absurd, immoral and demented superstitions as everyone else who has suffered from the influence of these delusions. You were lied to, psychologically traumatized, manipulated and indoctrinated too. So, I have some sympathy here. You’re trapped living a half-life of suffering and fear and debasement. But that doesn’t free you from the responsibility of the poison you spread, any more than the fact that most child abusers have themselves been abused excuses them.

It is the same thing, after all. You’re an abuse victim, advocating for the abuse of others. We can be sympathetic, but still not put up with it, let alone condone nor help you abuse others. (Which is a trait of your god.)

What it does mean, though, is that not only do I still not have any good reason to believe you, but you have no good reason to believe it yourself. You're telling me that the only thing in your arsenal is the most vaguely worded, non-specific, untestable, unverifiable threat. You know, because convincing people by threatening them is always a great way to go. Rather than being able to reasonably demonstrate the reality of your belief. That this is the best you've got. Which is nothing.

And anyway, you’ll stand one day, face to face with Anubis, as the Weighing of the Heart is performed, to send you to Aaru or be devoured by Ammit. The balance of Ma’at has the last word.

So, to restate my opening premise...

LOL.

[borderlinehannibal]

i wanna make a big ass church like mormon size church with like a bunch of big rooms that are set up as worshipping spaces for different religions and like smaller rooms to set up alters or to be dedicated to specific gods like i live near austin i could prolly get funded and its v easy to register as a church and there tax exampt like it could be rad

[ithisatanytime]

im going to start a fully tax exampt religion based on sethian gnosticism and the half baked lyrics of nineties eradance music video mcs

hey if anyone out there knows of a more elegant way to describe those guys please inbox me, you can go on anon i wont yell at you this time

[humanismtoday]

Yeah, even the most Bigoted Anti-Gay churches should keep non-profit status.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/10/11/beto-orourke-wants-anti-gay-churches-to-lose-their-tax-exemptions-hes-wrong/