How to say it.

Say this

1. Supported

   The split

   Israel writes two, really three, listed-speech offences, not only §24(b)(2). If the talk is about identification with groups — a flag, a slogan, an anthem — the closer statute is §24(a).

   Combating Terrorism Law, 5776-2016, §24(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)

2. Supported

   Group identification

   §24(a) is identification with a terrorist organization, including publishing words of praise, support or sympathy, waving a flag, displaying a symbol, or publishing a slogan or anthem. The test is public plus purpose to identify, or an actual possibility that the act will lead to a terrorist act or listed offenses. Maximum three years.

   Combating Terrorism Law §24(a)

3. Supported

   Direct call

   §24(b)(1) is a direct call to commit a terrorist act. There is no probability test. Maximum five years.

   Combating Terrorism Law §24(b)(1)

4. Supported

   Act praise

   §24(b)(2) is publishing praise, sympathy, encouragement, support of, or identification with a terrorist act, where the content of the publication and the circumstances in which it was published give rise to a substantial or real possibility that it will bring about a terrorist act. Maximum five years.

   Combating Terrorism Law §24(b)(2)

5. Supported

   Prior restraint

   Kol Ha'am, HCJ 73/53, is the constitutional prior-restraint test: near certainty that a publication will endanger the public peace. The criminal statute uses the lower substantial-possibility test. Those are not the same test. Do not collapse them.

   HCJ 73/53, 87/53 Kol Ha'am v. Minister of the Interior, 7 P.D. 871 (1953)

Do not

• Do not treat §24(b)(2) as the whole statute.
• Do not collapse the criminal substantial-possibility test into Kol Ha'am's constitutional near-certainty test.
• Do not speak as if §24 requires near certainty. It does not.
• If you name Amendment No. 9, carry the sunset: a temporary one-year consumption offense, extended 26 November 2025 through 30 November 2027.
• Do not describe the live Israeli test as ‘reasonable possibility’ unless and until Amendment No. 11 is gazetted. That proposal is Unproven-as-law.

Say this

1. Supported

   The gate

   UK glorification is not ‘praise is enough.’ Praise standing alone is not the offence.

   Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(3)

2. Supported

   Encouragement

   s.1 covers a statement a reasonable person would understand as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to terrorism. Mens rea is intent or recklessness. How the statement is understood is taken from contents as a whole and the circumstances and manner of publication. Actual encouragement is irrelevant. Particularity of the act is irrelevant.

   Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(1)–(2), (4), (5)

3. Supported

   Emulate now

   Glorification — including praise or celebration — counts only if members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances. That emulate-now inference is the statutory gate.

   Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(3), s.20(2)

4. Supported

   The maximum

   Maximum on indictment for s.1 is 15 years. It was raised from 7 years by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Older summaries still say 7. The live figure is 15.

   Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(7)(a); CTBSA 2019 s.7(6)

5. Supported

   Reckless opinion

   s.12(1) is invitation of support for a proscribed organisation. s.12(1A), added 12 April 2019, is a different offence: expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, and being reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support that organisation. Maximum 14 years on indictment. It is not s.1 glorification.

   Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1), s.12(1A)

Do not

• Do not say UK law criminalizes praise standing alone.
• Do not skip the emulate-now inference in s.1(3).
• Do not collapse s.1 glorification of an act into s.12(1A) reckless supportive opinion of a proscribed organisation.
• Do not quote the old 7-year maximum for s.1. The live maximum on indictment is 15 years.

Say this

1. Supported

   Independent citizen speech

   The United States does not write a federal listed-speech offence for independent citizen speech next to designation. There is no hidden glorification statute.

   Brandenburg, 395 U.S. 444; Holder, 561 U.S. 1; 18 U.S.C. §2339B

2. Supported

   The floor

   Brandenburg: the constitutional guarantees of free speech do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where that advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce it.

   Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969)

3. Supported

   Coordination, not applause

   Holder: 18 U.S.C. §2339B may reach speech that is training, expert advice, or service provided to, under the direction of, or in coordination with a designated foreign terrorist organization. The Court said plaintiffs ‘may say anything they wish on any topic.’ Independent praise stays outside §2339B. One line: the United States can punish help given to the group. It cannot, as current doctrine stands, punish independent applause of the group by a citizen.

   Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 25–26 (2010)

4. Supported

   Two Title VIs

   Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, is a live funding condition on race, color, and national origin, including shared ancestry. Official theory is institutional hostile environment / deliberate indifference — not a citizen speech crime, and not a glorification ban by other means. Title VI of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1121, is a different statute. Collapsing them is an error.

   42 U.S.C. §2000d; 20 U.S.C. §1121 et seq.

5. Supported

   Passed House, not law

   H.R. 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, passed the House 237–169 on 3 September 2026 and is not law. It would condition HEA student-aid eligibility for a ‘nonexpressive commercial boycott’ of Israel, plus HEA Title VI international-education certifications. That Title VI is not the Civil Rights Act.

   H.R. 4795, 119th Cong. (passed House 3 Sept. 2026) — not law

6. Supported

   Reported, not law

   H.R. 8476, No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026, was reported 20 August 2026 (Union Calendar 660), has not passed the House, and is not law. It would require funded schools and colleges to treat antisemitic discrimination as vigorously as other Title VI Civil Rights Act grounds. An earlier Fine bill, H.R. 6186, used the same short title. The live vehicle is H.R. 8476.

   H.R. 8476, 119th Cong. (reported 20 Aug. 2026, Union Calendar 660) — not law

Do not

• Do not describe Holder as a glorification case. It is a material-support case.
• Title VI official legal theory is institutional discrimination. It is not a listed-speech offence by other means.
• Do not describe H.R. 4795 as enacted. Do not describe it as amending the Civil Rights Act. Carry status in every sentence that names it: passed the House, not law.
• Do not describe H.R. 8476 as enacted or as having passed the House. Carry status in every sentence that names it: reported, has not passed the House, not law.
• Do not confuse H.R. 8476 with H.R. 6186.

Say this

1. Supported

   Already statute

   The immigration endorse / espouse tool is already statute. It is not a new post-October 7 invention, and it is not a listed-speech offence.

   INA §212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

2. Supported

   The clause

   Any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization, is inadmissible.

   8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

3. Supported

   Not Brandenburg

   That is not Brandenburg. There is no imminence requirement. It is a status bar: visa denial, refusal of admission, removal — not a criminal sentence for the speech.

   8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII)

4. Supported

   The manual

   9 FAM 302.6 is the consular manual. An applicant is ineligible under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) if the applicant endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization.

   9 FAM 302.6

5. Supported

   Direction, not a dataset

   Post-2025 screening intensification is official direction. Individual-case application is largely Unproven in primary statistical form. Do not invent denial or removal counts.

   EO 14188 (29 Jan 2025); 9 FAM 302.6. Case-level counts: Unproven

Do not

• Do not run the INA endorse / espouse clause through Brandenburg.
• Do not describe endorse or espouse as a speech crime. It is a status bar for non-citizens.
• Do not treat post-2025 screening direction as a statistical record of denials or removals. Direction is Supported. Case-level application is Unproven.
• Do not invent visa-denial or removal counts.

How to read this

The badge is the claim. The sentence is the fact. Unproven and Disputed stay where they are.

SupportedTitle VI official legal theory is institutional discrimination. It is not a listed-speech offence by other means.

DisputedMotive and overbreadth of post-October 7 Title VI enforcement are Disputed.

UnprovenA claim of systematic viewpoint discrimination at scale is Unproven as a dataset. It is a fair Inference as a structural risk of discretionary contextual tests.