PDA

View Full Version : Dissenting justices employ strict scrutiny for terrorist's supporters free speech


Maestro Pistolero
06-21-2010, 9:05 AM
Apparently 'serious and deadly consequences' are not sufficient to override the 1st amendment rights of those supporting terrorist organizations, according to the dissenting Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg. I guess we'll soon see if they feel as strongly about the 2nd amendment when deciding the level of scrutiny for law-abiding Americans exercising this right.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/21/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Anti-Terror-Law.html?hp&emc=na

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority's conclusion ''that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally'' for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups' lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

''Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,'' Breyer said.

CCWFacts
06-21-2010, 9:16 AM
''Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,'' Breyer said.


And yet I'm sure Mr. Breyer will find that the city of Chicago's "compelling public safety interests" are enough to "balance" the Second Amendment rights. Yeah. The city of Chicago is so interested in public safety.

loather
06-21-2010, 10:37 AM
Not even the "serious and deadly problem" of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights.

Bravo Justice Breyer!

Everyone is against terrorism. EVERYONE. Discourage them. Punish them. Root them out by any legal means. But for christ's sake, don't violate their rights while doing it. Rights must be applied universally or they're merely privileges subject to the whim of a totalitarian regime.

I'm sorry, this case was incorrectly decided. There is nothing more wrong than curtailing speech you don't agree with. This is not in any way to say I support the terrorists, as I don't. They're free to spew their nonsense (OK, so they're not free anymore), and I'm free to simply not listen to it.

This is foreboding. I don't like the way this is heading. Keep in mind this is the same court that decided Citizens United which (correctly) affirmed a first amendment right earlier this year. I simply cannot agree with this majority opinion on limiting the rights of those who spew terrorist speech.

Most people don't like what the KKK has to say either, and they certainly could have been labeled a terrorist organization at one point. We already have cases that protect their speech. I'm surprised this question was even asked.

curtisfong
06-21-2010, 2:04 PM
Disgusting. I am beyond ashamed that Breyer is in the minority.

It seems any belief in our God Given Rights is Terrorism, no matter who is in office.

Take heed, those of you clueless sheep who continue to vote along party lines.

Theseus
06-21-2010, 3:02 PM
Apparently 'serious and deadly consequences' are not sufficient to override the 1st amendment rights of those supporting terrorist organizations, according to the dissenting Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg. I guess we'll soon see if they feel as strongly about the 2nd amendment when deciding the level of scrutiny for law-abiding Americans exercising this right.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/21/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Anti-Terror-Law.html?hp&emc=na

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority's conclusion ''that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally'' for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups' lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

''Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,'' Breyer said.

Providing instruction and advise about a groups LAWFUL political objectives.

Here is the part that got my attention. They can curtail your legal right to advise people about how they can do things legally because they might otherwise, or in some other aspects, be bad people.

Disgusting!

Maestro Pistolero
06-21-2010, 5:01 PM
I hope this court never decides whether to deny gun purchases for those on secret government lists.

bigstick61
06-21-2010, 5:12 PM
Surprised not to see Thomas in the dissent on this one.

jshoebot
06-21-2010, 6:01 PM
Surprised not to see Thomas in the dissent on this one.

As am I. He usually has really good dissentions whenever the majority rules against freedom. I wonder why he went along with this?

Maestro Pistolero
06-21-2010, 6:24 PM
Let's just hope these dissenting justices are consistent when it comes time to apply strict scrutiny to the incorporated second amendment.

Could you imagine Breyer saying:''Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of gun violence can require automatic forfeiture of Second Amendment rights,'' ?

I am imagining them borrowing language from the yet-to-be-released McDonald decision. :D

Fyathyrio
06-22-2010, 12:32 AM
So, all it takes for the government to deny rights to an organization is declare them terrorists...I hope they never decide the NRA are "terrorists".

Whiskey84
06-22-2010, 12:53 AM
I had to re-read that to make sure I got it right. Now anyone the .gov deems a terror threat has less rights to free speech?

Shameful decision.

bigstick61
06-22-2010, 1:05 AM
I had to re-read that to make sure I got it right. Now anyone the .gov deems a terror threat has less rights to free speech?

Shameful decision.

Of course, it will be a good one to cite against those who state whatever the supreme court says is right and the highest law. Court rulings can easily contradict what the law actually says. The court is not and should not be considered the end-all be-all of the law and its interpretation. We've already suffered quite a bit from the results of that approach.

N6ATF
06-22-2010, 1:15 AM
So, all it takes for the government to deny rights to an organization is declare them terrorists...I hope they never decide the NRA are "terrorists".

Too late...
http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

militia movement A rightwing extremist movement composed of groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories. Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations)

rightwing extremism This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

single-issue extremist groups Groups or individuals who focus on a single issue or cause

Manic Moran
06-22-2010, 1:43 PM
As am I. He usually has really good dissentions whenever the majority rules against freedom. I wonder why he went along with this?

Probably the same reason that Stevens went along with it, and he's got quite the reputation for siding against the government when it comes to freedom and terrorism-related restrictions. Ignore the outcome for a second, and look simply at the rationale that the Majority used in their opinion. It's pretty solid. They did the maths, then looked to see what the outcome was, as opposed for looking for a specific outcome and then trying to figure out logic to support it.

Now, even if one were to presume that associating with a terrorist group for legal/humanitarian reasons was not really intended by Congress when they made the law (a presumption I am not willing to make, personally I think they objected to any association at all), then this unintended consequence does not necessarily render it unConstitutional. Just overly-broadly written and in need of re-writing for the correct effect.

The law is not unConstitutionally vague, and the limitations on political speech are solely as regards to speech which knowingly aids the terrorist organisation specifically, not its cause. The Kurdish Association of San Francisco can lobby all they want for a Free Kurdistan, they can set up aid stations in the place, put TV adverts up, whatever. This may end up having the effect of attaining the same goal as the PKK, but as long as the PKK itself is not the recipient of the help, then it's quite legal. I think it's quite feasible to place the limit as regards strict scrutiny on, not what you say but on who say it with if that 'who' is a terrorist group.

NTM

OlderThanDirt
06-22-2010, 2:10 PM
Here is the part that got my attention. They can curtail your legal right to advise people about how they can do things legally because they might otherwise, or in some other aspects, be bad people.

Disgusting!

To the Brady Bunch you just described Calguns and gun owners.

ZombieTactics
06-22-2010, 2:35 PM
As much as I generally consider myself a radical supporter of all things Bill-of-Rights ...

It occurs to me that the "NAZI party USA" or some other similar group could have some "legal right" - say in the middle of WW2 - to put up a website promoting all the "wonderful things Hitler has done" ... y'know LEGAL things ... like making the trains run on time or building really cool monuments 'n stuff ... and accepting PayPal donations to promote that sort of lawful activity. At some point this kind of ostensibly "benign" activity has to be seen for what it is ... a recruitment tool at the outlying fringes.

I need to read more about this case before forming a final opinion, but that's a devil's advocate position off the top of my head.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 3:46 PM
As much as I generally consider myself a radical supporter of all things Bill-of-Rights ...

It occurs to me that the "NAZI party USA" or some other similar group could have some "legal right" - say in the middle of WW2 - to put up a website promoting all the "wonderful things Hitler has done" ... y'know LEGAL things ... like making the trains run on time or building really cool monuments 'n stuff ... and accepting PayPal donations to promote that sort of lawful activity. At some point this kind of ostensibly "benign" activity has to be seen for what it is ... a recruitment tool at the outlying fringes.

I need to read more about this case before forming a final opinion, but that's a devil's advocate position off the top of my head.

I think as you said - there has to be some view of intent. Is your intent to preach what you view as virtues of an otherwise dangerous element - or is your intent to spread propaganda and support a known dangerous element.

There is a fine but very clear line between ignorance and willful participation - and that line is called intent.

Maestro Pistolero
06-22-2010, 4:29 PM
The problem with the SCOTUS approach is that all the government must do is SAY that a group or person is a terrorist, and then they may be deprived of due process.

mtptwo
06-22-2010, 5:08 PM
Bravo Justice Breyer!

Everyone is against terrorism. EVERYONE. Discourage them. Punish them. Root them out by any legal means. But for christ's sake, don't violate their rights while doing it. Rights must be applied universally or they're merely privileges subject to the whim of a totalitarian regime.

I'm sorry, this case was incorrectly decided. There is nothing more wrong than curtailing speech you don't agree with. This is not in any way to say I support the terrorists, as I don't. They're free to spew their nonsense (OK, so they're not free anymore), and I'm free to simply not listen to it.

This is foreboding. I don't like the way this is heading. Keep in mind this is the same court that decided Citizens United which (correctly) affirmed a first amendment right earlier this year. I simply cannot agree with this majority opinion on limiting the rights of those who spew terrorist speech.

Most people don't like what the KKK has to say either, and they certainly could have been labeled a terrorist organization at one point. We already have cases that protect their speech. I'm surprised this question was even asked.

You said it much better than I could.

Maestro Pistolero
06-22-2010, 5:48 PM
I'm really curious how these dissenters will back out of their position taken for those who support terrorist organizations, to use less than strict scrutiny for 2A rights. This pretzel logic is bound to require some really good mustard to avoid a choking hazard.