This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.
“it appears that you are currently raising funds in order to take part in activities that are likely to cause loss of life."
This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
1) You are arguing now that journalists should have legal immunity.
> Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
2) She was taking actions that physically prevented other people from taking actions. That isn't literal speech and is much further from speech than software is.
> This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
3) No. This is you attempting to frame outrageous criminal acts as "politics".
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.
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.
Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.
And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.
The purpose with patreon being to fund her "journalistic activities" which included the legally dubious action.
You seem to think, completely without any substantiation, that Lauren Southern is disingenuous when she thinks that people are drowning on styrofoam rafts and being trafficked. You can think that you should have strict immigration laws and still care about people drowning in the ocean.
As far as I can see, she's a politically active woman in her mid 20s who has some unpopular political opinions that is being decried as a murderer for having a different assessment of the situation.
You don't get to go into other countries, break their laws, and expect private corporations to back you to the hilt. They are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your beliefs.
That isn't a reasonable expectation by any stretch of the imagination. Using the logic you are applying, you believe Patreon should be compelled to support the sales of "software" in the US even if its malware on the basis of free speech.