[hyeonwho4]

That is true. What recently happened is that the Supreme court has determined that speech which benefits a foreign terrorist organization constitutes "material support" to that organization, and providing material support to a terrorist organization is a crime which can get a green card revoked.

Now, I don't think it makes any sense that speech is "material" support, but I also think it doesn't make any sense that speech is "violence," and US culture seems to have repudiated my thoughts on what distinguishes speech from action.

But whatever I think, under current law, speech in support of a terrorist organization is no longer free speech. And certain pro-Palestinian organizations were defined by the previous administration to be terrorist organizations back in November. So it follows that certain pro-Gaza activism is no longer free speech. I don't think this should be the case, but this is the current state of the law.

[ignotus02]

Not a lawyer, but reading from the 2010 decision that I think your citing the first line is.

"Material support" is logically defined as more than mere statements of support, and supporters of these groups may advocate for or participate in these organizations.

Specifically it's seems as though an organization was working with terrorist groups to provide training on how to seek non violent solutions with global humanitarian bodies.

Seems like for this to be similar it would require the government to show they individual engaged in direct actions to provide aid to Hamas greater than statements/speech to meet the current definition of "material support".

For statements of support of a terrorist organization to be considered "material support" I think it would require a new ruling from SCOTUS