No independent-praise crime

United States — citizen

No independent-praise crime. Brandenburg is imminent lawless action. Holder is coordination, not applause.

Independent-praise crime?: No
Test: Brandenburg: directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it. Holder: coordination, not independent applause.
Who decides: Almost never charged for pure independent praise. §2339B needs material support to / directed by / coordinated with an FTO.
Cost: n/a for independent praise. §2339B: up to 20 years if the speech is coordinated support.

Live doctrineSupportedUS citizen

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Target: Advocacy of force or law violation by a speaker
Test: Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and likely to incite or produce it
Max: Unprotected speech may be punished under an otherwise valid criminal statute. Independent abstract advocacy is protected.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

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

Cite · Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) · as of 2026-09-05

Independent public speech next to designation, without directed and likely imminent lawless action, remains protected citizen speech.

This is the citizen-speech floor. It is not the INA test and it is not the Title VI institutional test.

Primary source

Live doctrineSupportedUS citizen

561 U.S. 1 (2010)

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

Target: Speech that is training, expert advice, or service provided to, under the direction of, or in coordination with a designated FTO
Test: Coordination, not applause. Independent advocacy is outside the statute.
Max: The as-applied holding leaves independent advocacy untouched. Coordinated support is reachable under §2339B.

That claim is unfounded because, under the material-support statute, they may say anything they wish on any topic. Section 2339B does not prohibit independent advocacy or membership in the PKK and LTTE. Rather, Congress has prohibited 'material support,' which most often does not take the form of speech. And when it does, the statute is carefully drawn to cover only a narrow category of speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.

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

Cite · Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 25–26 (2010) · as of 2026-09-05

Holder is coordination, not applause. Keep that cut sharp.

Do not describe Holder as a listed-speech case. It is a material-support case.

One-line teaching point: 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.

Primary source

Live statuteSupportedUS citizen

§2339B(a)(1), (h)

18 U.S.C. §2339B

Target: Knowing provision of material support or resources to a designated FTO
Test: Knowledge that the organization is designated or engages in terrorism. Independent actors are not 'personnel' under (h).
Max: 20 years; any term of years or life if death results

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. … Individuals who act entirely independently of the foreign terrorist organization to advance its goals or objectives shall not be considered to be working under the foreign terrorist organization's direction and control.

18 U.S.C. §2339B(a)(1), (h).

Cite · 18 U.S.C. §2339B(a)(1), (h) · as of 2026-09-05

Subsection (i) is a rule of construction: nothing in the section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge First Amendment rights.

Primary source

Live doctrineSupportedUS citizen

doctrinal result

No listed-speech offence

Target: Independent public speech next to a designated act or group
Test: There is no federal listed-speech offence. Brandenburg plus Holder leave independent public speech next to designation outside the criminal code.
Max: n/a for independent public speech next to designation

Not happening: a new US federal crime that criminalizes independent praise of terrorism the way Israel or the UK does.

Pack freeze, as of 2026-09-05, grounded in Brandenburg and Holder.

Cite · Brandenburg, 395 U.S. 444; Holder, 561 U.S. 1; 18 U.S.C. §2339B · as of 2026-09-05

Quoted US citizen example: no listed-speech offence. Keep it as 'No.' Israel and the UK remain quoted examples of the other form, not the product identity.

Primary source