RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Free Speech Takes a Hit, From Washington

Sunday, 25 July 2010 10:51
President Obama and Vice President Biden announce the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, 05/10/10. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)

President Obama and Vice President Biden announce the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, 05/10/10. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)



Reader Supported News | Perspective

I. The Present Situation

n June 21, 2010 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Holder [the present Attorney General] vs. Humanitarian Law Project [HLP]. In what The New York Times called "its most significant ruling on free speech rights in terrorism cases" the Court upheld a federal law that defined just about any interaction with members of groups designated as "terrorist" by the US government as "material support" for criminal activities. Punishment can include a prison sentence of 15 years. The HLP was attempting to teach members of the Turkish PKK (which is such a designated group) how to deal with some of their grievances through accepted United Nations channels.

More specifically, the law, which is a provision of the misnamed Patriot Act, specifies that it is illegal to provide "training," "personnel," "expert advice or assistance" and "service" to members of designated terrorist groups. Previously, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had found these terms to be "unconstitutionally vague." The Supreme Court disagreed, and by a 6 to 3 ruling decided that the law was constitutional after all. Just how radical this decision is can be seen by the fact that it is now illegal to directly assist alleged terrorists to change their behavior so that they cease being terrorists. At times the government's arguments and the response of the justices got downright silly. Thus, according to US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who argued the government's case, and is herself a current nominee for the Supreme Court, it would be a criminal act to teach a member of the PKK to play the harmonica. The clever, but decidedly unwise, Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia agreed, observing that terrorists who learn to play instruments might form a band and raise money for illicit causes.

Silliness aside, the First Amendment is no longer what it used to be. As the civil rights lawyer David Cole notes, "For the first time ever, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity." In other words, for the present, the First Amendment is an emasculated facade behind which the government operates to severely limit what the Amendment is designed to protect. Actually, this emasculation has been going on for almost a decade and the Court has now confirmed the "legality" of the process. Thus, this part of the Patriot Act has already been used to harass and destroy a number of benign Muslim charities, nonviolent supporters of Palestinian rights, and even the American lawyers of individuals charged with terrorism.

II. The Majority's Contribution to the Erosion of Free Speech

While Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project is part of a contemporary assault on free speech, the periodic attack on this basic right has a history almost as old as the nation itself. There were the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the suppression of a wide range of freedoms, including speech, during the Civil War and World War I, the heinous behavior of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, and now the sustained assault embodied in the "Patriot Act." These eruptions of what can be called anti-American behavior on the part of the American government are usually associated with real or imagined emergencies during which the latent authoritarian proclivities of the governing elites range free.

One of the important, though often overlooked, factors that make possible this history of assaults on free speech is that most US citizens either do not care that they occur, or welcome them. This accounts for the remarkably sparse media coverage of the June 21 Supreme Court decision and the almost total lack of public concern. Why is this so? In truth, for the majority within a democracy, the legal right guaranteeing freedom of speech is only an abstraction. On a daily basis most citizens are not conscious of either the existence of or the need for such a right. After all, it is the democratic majority (as manipulated as they might be) who define accepted norms. The speech of such a majority is by definition normative speech, and as such it is not felt to be in need of protection.

On the other hand, freedom of speech and associated rights do become noticeable and in need of protection when used to publicly discuss and question beyond the community's commonly accepted norms. Not only do members of the majority not ordinarily do this, but they are often suspicious of the minority who do. The general public may easily be led by its media and government spokespeople to see such questioners as unpatriotic troublemakers. As such, these minority elements are not viewed as practitioners of rights, but rather as abusers of them. That is why the more the majority feels threatened, the more democratic governments will move, with the acquiescence of the public, to legislate a limit to free speech. In the present case of the Supreme Court decision of June 21, we can assume that the general public already feels uncomfortable due to the often-exaggerated claims of those waging the "war on terror." So the suppression of an alleged source of non-normative, potentially unpatriotic behavior (for instance the efforts of the Humanitarian Law Project) is not going to draw a lot of popular concern and opposition.

Finally, lets talk about who defended this horrible law before the Supreme Court. If it had been the corrupt Justice Department of George W. Bush, we would all be asking what else can you expect? How very much in character for them to do this. But George W. is no longer in charge. His relatively liberal opponents are. Yet it is apparent that when it comes to the "war on terror" President Obama and the Democratic Congress have decided to carry forward the dangerous legal prohibitions of Bush's Patriot Act. The Democrats most likely fear that if they do not do so, and there is another terrorist attack on the US, they are politically doomed. Thus, the administration has made no attempt to reeducate or reorient public opinion on the question of terrorism. In the absence of such a reorientation the security-minded majority continues to view any group designated a terrorist organization by the State Department as "radioactive," and President Obama is trapped into defending reactionary laws like the one that did in HLP. It is a circular scenario.

It would seem that we are stuck with a manipulated and frightened majority who are going to either yawn or applaud as free speech rights are trimmed back. No one in the government will challenge this situation and so the Patriot Act will continue to define free speech rights as long as the "war on terror" shapes normative thinking.


Lawrence Davidson is a professor of Middle East history at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and author of the works listed below.

Contributing Editor: Logos: A Journal of Modern Society & Culture

"Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest"

"America's Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood"

"Islamic Fundamentalism"

Keep your eye on the language: When South Africa assigned rights according to race they called it apartheid. When Israel assigns rights according to religion they call it the only democracy in the Middle East.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+11 # Guest 2010-07-25 11:49
We support the world's most dedicated terrorists, the Israelis.
But that is a disallowed statement in America, which violates its own laws in order to support terrorism by Israel. In fact, almost any truth about Israel or our government's policies in that region, is considered actionable by our (mis)rulers.
+12 # Guest 2010-07-25 14:13
Does this mean we can't pay our taxes because we would be giving material support to a "terrorist" nation for killing, wounding and torturing over a million people in the Middle East?
0 # Guest 2010-07-29 09:01
Right on, Steed! Even the most blinkered brainwashed TeeVee-head fascist has to see the light on that one.
+9 # Guest 2010-07-25 15:06
Unless we unite and protest and as one rep said on C-Span start a movement, we should expect less and less freedoms overall
+1 # Guest 2010-07-29 09:02
And the bullies will keep taking our lunch money, until we show some spine.
+5 # Guest 2010-07-25 16:12
The current administration and Supreme Court obviously want "terrorism" and violence to thrive, otherwise why would they "criminalize" those who like the Humanitarian Law Project, are trying to promote peace. Tell me does this law prevent the UN and diplomats from functioning in their peace efforts? Perhaps so. If no one is allowed to bring "warring" parties to the negotiating table the world will not only see more conflict and war and terrorism, but we will be on the fast tract to nuclear war.

This insane ruling must be reversed.
+4 # soularddave 2010-07-25 21:48
The long held notion of the United States leading by being a good example has been turned on its head. The rest of the world is astonished that we've allowed it, and wonders how this could happen in a Democracy.

A very rude minority has thrown progress off course in terms of climate, energy, economy, and indeed, democracy itself.
+1 # Guest 2010-07-29 09:06
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell
A very rude minority has thrown progress off course in terms of climate, energy, economy, and indeed, democracy itself.
-4 # Guest 2010-07-25 22:28
Mr. Davidson's criticism of the Holder vs. HLP Supreme Court decision has some merit; however as usual he reveals his pro Palestinian point of view. In his comment about Palestinian charities, he ignores the fact that often Palestinian charities funnel money and other support to organizations such as Hamas, which mix charitable work with support of terrorist activities. Hamas is certainly not a democratic organization that supports free speech in Gaza nor would the Moslem Brotherhood or other Islamic fundamentalist organizations support this idea if they came to power in Egypt or elsewhere. Look at what happened in Iran an Islamic nation although obviously non Arab. Below Professor Davidson's list of writings a statement equates Israel's system of democracy and free speech and press with apartheid. Perhaps in a future RSN article Dr. Davidson can inform readers about how free speech and basic democractic and/or humanitarian rights function in Arab nations be they secular or religiously controlled.
+2 # Guest 2010-07-26 09:05
The recent sentencing of the seventy-year-ol d distinguished civil rights lawyer, Lynne Stewart, to ten years in prison for the infraction of a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) of the prison in which her convicted client, Sheik Omar Rahman, was held, is an egregious example of exactly this sort of erosion of basic First Amendment rights. In Stewart's case, the offense occurred in 1997, long before the enactment of the Patriot Act, but the prosecution of the case only only happened in the hysterical aftermath of 9/11, with the Patriot Act redefining the limits of civil liberties. Virtually, it is a case of ex post facto injustice.
The real meaning of this case is that a woman has been sentenced to death for holding a press conference.
+2 # Guest 2010-07-26 12:02
A conviction for violation of a SAM as an ex post facto injustice is no surprise in a culture where a basic constitutional right, the right of habeas corpus, can be ignored with impuntiy to the point of virtual repeal, and rather clearly illustrates Prof. Davidson's point about the "latent authoritarian proclivites of the governing elites." God Save The Republic from Special Administrative Measures and the Old Lie, Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.