quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether a law that bars Americans from providing support to foreign terrorist groups violated constitutional rights of free speech and association.

Some justices seemed concerned the law outlawed the provision to such groups even of advice about lawful advocacy, such as petitioning the United Nations or filing legal briefings in American courts.

The hour-long arguments represented the first test to reach the Supreme Court after the September 11, 2001, attacks pitting First Amendment rights of free speech and association against government efforts to fight terrorism.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said verbal or written communications, protected by the First Amendment, could be censored under the law.

"You can communicate, but the communications are censored," she told the Obama administration lawyer who defended the law. "There's a certain point where the discussions must stop."

The law barring material support, first adopted in 1996, was strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks and underwent minor amendment again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.

Georgetown University law professor David Cole argued to the court that the law made it a crime for his clients, the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles and its president Ralph Fertig, to speak out in assistance of the Kurdistan Workers Party, a militant separatist group in Turkey.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the administration's top courtroom lawyer, called the law a "vital weapon" for the government in fighting terrorism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Supreme Court considers terrorism support law

quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether a law that bars Americans from providing support to [ALLEGED] foreign terrorist groups violated constitutional rights of free speech and association.

One mans terrorist group is another mans savior....~Founding Fathers of the US Constitution.

Some justices seemed concerned the law outlawed the provision to such groups even of advice about lawful advocacy, such as petitioning the United Nations or filing legal briefings in American courts.

Why would anyone question NO REMEDY??

The hour-long arguments represented the first test to reach the Supreme Court after the September 11, 2001, (read "now that we accomplished all the dirty deeds), attacks pitting First Amendment rights of free speech and association against government efforts to fight terrorism.

You have the right to say whatever you want but if you say somehting that falls in line with that which an "ALLEGED PRESUMED" terrorist group is preaching then you by association are a fucking terrorist!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said verbal or written communications, protected by the First Amendment, could be censored under the law.

Now aint that the best line of double talk bullshit we heard in a very long time?  Thats right up there with that loonartic gonzales.

I mean hell....we always protect rights we want to censor.

Ah she forgot to add sign language and grunts!

"You can communicate, but the communications are censored," she told the Obama administration lawyer who defended the law. "There's a certain point where the discussions must stop."

Thats right! You can communicate but you cannot convey the message!

The law barring material support, first adopted in 1996, was strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks and underwent minor amendment again in 2004.

The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.

What if that is grandma and you are trying to convince her to rejoin the chuch of uncle sam?  Does that count?

Georgetown University law professor David Cole argued to the court that the law made it a crime for his clients, the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles and its president Ralph Fertig, to speak out in assistance of the Kurdistan Workers Party, a militant separatist group in Turkey.

SILENCE YOU CATO FUCKWIT!  They are not allowed a voice get it?   Here fuckwit just pass out these targets for them to wear for blackwater!

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the administration's top courtroom lawyer, called the law a "vital weapon" for the government in fighting terrorism.

Yes Vital in snuffing and silencing all opposition!

Well, this is a nice little mess, free speech versus security.