Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

[Groucho]

Material support is not speech. Look it up in the dictionary. The most basic definition of speech is the expression of thoughts, feelings and other things through the articulation of words.

I agree with you.

Wait a minute -- isn't this the same Supreme Court that said that money WAS speech when it applies to candidates running for office?

Now I'm really confused.

 

[RightinNYC]

To suggest that the justices who dissented in this case did so because they support Hezbollah and Hamas is nonsense.

Absolutely true, though I think that saying they dissented because "they support the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association" creates the unwarranted implication that those in the majority don't support those same rights. All the justices believe in those rights, they simply have a disagreement about the type of things they protect and how to balance them with the government's authority to enact laws.

 

[Groucho]

Not having read the decision, this looks like one of those "We have to support the 1st amendment for everyone or else it's meaningless" cases -- kind of like the Nazis marching case.

 

[jamesrage]

I agree with you.

Wait a minute -- isn't this the same Supreme Court that said that money WAS speech when it applies to candidates running for office?

Now I'm really confused.

That supreme court rulling did not say that money itself is speech. I do not believe money is speech seeing how speech is the expressions of thoughts,emotions and other things through the articulation of words. Money in case of political spending is used to facilitate speech, whether it is written,verbal,printed,sign languaged.video and so on. It is the intentions of what the limitations on money is used for,which is why McCain-Feingold was struck down.. McCain-Feingold was basically saying you can have a cheeseburger, but we will ban hamburger meat,sliced processed cheese and hamburger buns.

 

[obvious Child]

Will this same ruling apply to the government? We have supported various groups currently labeled terrorists today as part of our past cold war policy. I agree that giving money is not the same thing as speech, but I wonder how consistent this ruling is going to be applied.

You know, I agree with you most of the time and I think pretty poorly of the government, but I don't think they are that evil as to go about declaring any group they wish to be terrorists. I can see you concern, I just don't see it as being a real impact.

 

[Deuce]

The source of the dissent is probably this:

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

I still do some flight instructing here and there. If one of my students turns out to be a member of one of these groups, am I going to jail or is there a "knowingly and willingly" requirement? Edit: Saw the "knowingly" clause. That seems reasonable.
I'm on the fence on this one. Offering advice on plumbing doesn't strike me as something that should be worthy of jail time. Then again, who offers advice on plumbing to Al-Qaida?

 

[Gardener]

Ok, I am only one page into reading the case right now and I can already see that it is exceedingly incorrect to refer to the groups at issue (the Tamil Tigers and the PKK) as "jihadist." You should at least get your slurs straight, Gardener.

Odd, how you read right past the statement "Nearly four dozen organizations are on the State Department list, including al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Basque separatists in Spain and Maoist rebels in Peru." in such a way as to completely excise any Islamist organization from consideration.

While you may feel some compulsion to defend these Islamist terrorist organizations through this intentional act of editing them out like you did, I do not. I stand quite firmly against them, and so I feel no need to apologize for my remark simply because you have decided to support them by calling my reaction a "slur".

 

[apdst]

Will this same ruling apply to the government? We have supported various groups currently labeled terrorists today as part of our past cold war policy. I agree that giving money is not the same thing as speech, but I wonder how consistent this ruling is going to be applied.

Did Obama break the law by giving Hamas $400 million?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This is good news.


FOXNews.com - Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

But people can still burn the flag and use hate-speech at a fallen soldier's funeral in protest.

well - I guess they're stepping more in the right direction.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I stand quite firmly against them, and so I feel no need to apologize for my remark simply because you have decided to support them by calling my reaction a "slur".

"Jihadist" is a slur, because it unfairly associates the Islamic concept of holy jihad (a nonviolent concept) with criminals and terrorists. You can label people "Islamist" or "Jihadist" all you like but it doesn't change the fact that criminals are not representative of Islam and using such broad and offensive terminology to lump criminals together with a world religion is the very definition of a slur.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

"Jihadist" is a slur, because it unfairly associates the Islamic concept of holy jihad (a nonviolent concept) with criminals and terrorists. You can label people "Islamist" or "Jihadist" all you like but it doesn't change the fact that criminals are not representative of Islam and using such broad and offensive terminology to lump criminals together with a world religion is the very definition of a slur.

Muslims even dabate what exactly is permitted, encouraged or accepted as "jihad" . . . so obviously your view differs from the view of someone else.

However, I read this some time ago when I was trying to understand it - and it might not touch on everything, but it seems to be respectful and reasonably accurate. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/heit/whatisjihad.html