Editorials

Against the holding:

A Bruise on the First Amendment
“On Monday, in the first case since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to test free speech against the demands of national security in the age of terrorism, the ideals of an earlier time were eroded and free speech lost.”

Chewing Gum for Terrorists
“Under current law, it seems, the right to make profits is more sacrosanct than the right to petition for peace, and the need to placate American businesses more compelling than the need to provide food and shelter to earthquake victims and war refugees”

The Supreme Court goes too far in the name of fighting terrorism
“[M]embers of the Humanitarian Law Project legally can stand on a street corner and praise the PKK for carrying out terrorist acts, but they cannot work with the PKK in an effort to stop the violence”

A Boost for Counterterrorism Powers
“Viewed in the broader context of post-9/11 government powers, this case is yet more indication not only that liberty-security balances have shifted but that the Obama administration is not likely to shift them back”

Noam Chomsky: Final Remarks, Istanbul Conference on Freedom of Speech
“Supporting the Obama administration, the far-right Court justices granted the government rights of repression that carry us back many decades”

Harmonicas and Hezbollah
“[T]he tough hypotheticals are much too easy to construct with this law—the Justices had an ocean of them—and that’s a bad sign”

Supreme Court Rules ‘Material Support’ Law Can Stand
“The government should not be in the business of criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights.”

Supporting the holding:

Supreme Court’s hard line on supporting terrorists is the right line
“[T]he Supreme Court last month rightly upheld the ban on “material support” for designated foreign terrorist organizations to include seemingly benign support and training.”

Comments are closed.

Log in