Vo.4-Moshirnia-Final

2013 / Valuing Speech and OSINT in the Face of Judicial Deference 452
the Crisis Mapping team could be accused of material support or directly
inhibited by a dearth of NGOs or media members on the ground.
At the initial stage, the immediate reporters are likely to be FTO
members or to be otherwise affiliated with them. These areas are under the
control of FTO members, FTO members would likely have the greatest
access to reporting tools, and FTO members would have good reason to
report on crises so as to gain greater legitimacy. The receipt, translation,
and visualization of these messages would generate a map that could be
characterized as the result of “coordinated” speech. Indeed, the furnishing
of the platform at all may be material support. After all, a Crisis Map is not
merely a journalistic exercise. Team members translate, geolocate, and
verify (thus lending more credibility to) submitted reports. The resulting
Crisis Map is not simply a repetition of victim (in this scenario, members of
an FTO) statements. It creates a guide for potential relief, provides a
discussion platform, and generates a more easily accessible representation of
facts to a wide audience. A Crisis Map may provide logistical support, early
warning, and political legitimation, and surely an oppressed group may use
it to harass or embarrass an aggressor. These, of course, are the very
concerns addressed by the majority in HLP. 366
One does not need to assume that a great number of the actions of
crisis mappers would actually be prosecuted in order to conclude that HLP
may still retard crisis mapping. This Article has already discussed the
chilling effect on NGOs and reporters of the expansive material support
statute. 367 These actors are vital for verifying reports and creating actionable
items. 368 In this way, an expansive reading of the material support at worst
threatens to prevent Crisis Map deployments or at best lessens the
effectiveness of Crisis Maps by reducing the number of verifying sources,
who may be worried that they will face prosecution for their efforts under
the new HLP standard. 369
366 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2725–26 (2010).
367 See supra Part III.
368 See discussion supra Part II.
369 See chilled NGO discussion supra Part IV.