Over the past several years, the Justice Department has increasingly attempted to criminalize what is clearly protected political speech by prosecuting numerous individuals (Muslims, needless to say) for disseminating political views the government dislikes or considers threatening. The latest episode emerged on Friday, when the FBIannounced the arrest and indictment of Jubair Ahmad, a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, charged with “providing material support” to a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT)).
What is the “material support” he allegedly gave? He produced and uploaded a 5-minute video to YouTube featuring photographs of U.S. abuses in Abu Ghraib, video of armored trucks exploding after being hit by IEDs, prayer messages about “jihad” from LeT’s leader, and — according to the FBI’s Affidavit — “a number of terrorist logos.” That, in turn, led the FBI agent who signed the affidavit to assert that ”based on [his] training and experience, it is evident that the video . . . is designed as propaganda to develop support for LeT and to recruit jihadists to LeT.” The FBI also claims Ahmad spoke with the son of an LeT leader about the contents of the video and had attended an LeT camp when he was a teenager in Pakistan. For the act of uploading that single YouTube video (and for denying that he did so when asked by the FBI agents who came to his home to interrogate him), he faces 23 years in prison.
Let’s be very clear about the key point: the Constitution — specifically the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment — prohibits the U.S. Government from punishing someone for the political views they express, even if those views include the advocacy of violence against the U.S. and its leaders. One can dislike this legal fact. One can wish it were different. But it is the clear and unambiguous law, and has been since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had publicly threatened violence against political officials in a speech.
The criminalization of speech
Yes to Glenn.
Yes, the Supreme Court precedent is clear, but, with the Roberts’ court, will it remain in place? Roberts has little compunction about 180 degree reversals, if it fits his ideology.
The US public is being continually brainwashed to accept lessening of their Bill of Rights’ actual rights, and this arrest is part of that propaganda.
I have small faith in the will or desire of the rightwing judges on the Supreme Court to uphold the Bill of Rights (except for gun totin’ laws), plus I fear for the stands of some of the Obama named judge. Indeed, I fear for many of the Democratically appointed judges.
It seems to me the very idea of the Perpetual War on Terra has clouded the thinking ability of most of the Supremos.
The problem crops up when free speech rights are used as a tool to attempt to destroy the very social and political structure that grants them. Then you’ve got “liberal” heads exploding.
Use your free speech to advocate the killing of a judge or officer of the court or even the president and see how that flies. Make an instructional video for a specific jihadi group — thereby providing a service with value to them — about how to blow up vehicles and see how that works out for you. Remember that speech is money; providing a service, say, of video editing and production on behalf of a group is the same as giving it money and providing material assistance.
sedition, n., incitement of discontent or rebellion against the government; any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting discontent or rebellion. Why isn’t the FOX News logo directly to the left of this word in the dictionary? Why hasn’t the FCC pulled this networks license to operate. Free speech is one thing. Being a public menance 24/7 is quite another. Relax Glenn until they shut down FOX we’re all very safe in our papers and effects. But you’ve hit on a great way to make a fast buck.
Make a video of a song about killing officers of the court:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/judges-uphold-sentence-man-who-made-death-threat-song
Go to jail.
The most ominous development was discussed in passing at the bottom of GG’s post. The Roberts court might follow Brandenburg. But in the DAA the Congress ceded the power to indict someone for terrorism to the President and place that individual in Guantanamo without recourse to habeas. Holder has already claimed Executive Due Process as a constitutional precept. The courts are denying habeas review as a matter of course. We now have the concept of indefinite detention of citizens at the whim of the President with no judicial review. Voila: the Unitary Executive! It was just speech, you say. President Cheney says otherwise. You look at the direction of national leadership and tell me this can’t happen.
Speak ill of Glennzilla and I will have to open up my can.