........The material-support law bars not only contributions of cash, weapons and other tangible aid but also “training,” “personnel” “service” and “expert advice or assistance.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench. He said the majority had drawn a false analogy between the two kinds of assistance.
“Money given for a charitable purpose might free up other money used to buy arms,” Justice Breyer said from the bench. But the same cannot be said, he continued, “where teaching human rights law is involved.”
The decision was a victory for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued the case in February and whose confirmation hearings for a seat on the court are scheduled to start next week. But Chief Justice Roberts said the government had advanced a position that was too extreme and did not take adequate account of the free-speech interests at stake.
“The government is wrong,” the chief justice wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he went on to say that the government’s interest in combating terrorism was enough to overcome that protection.
In his written dissent, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Breyer said the majority had been too credulous in accepting the government’s argument that national security concerns required restrictions on the challengers’ speech and had “failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”
.........The plaintiffs said they had sought to aid only the two groups’ nonviolent activities. For instance, they said, they wanted to offer training in how to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully and “how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.”
That sort of help, they said, was speech protected by the First Amendment.
David D. Cole, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the court’s rejection of that argument was disappointing. “This decision basically says the First Amendment allows making peacemaking and human rights advocacy a crime,” Mr. Cole said... Full story
Posts
