Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (369726)	6/21/2010 7:25:08 PM
From: mph	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794001

Pre-enforcement challenge to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B(a)(1), which criminalizes providing "material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" was a justiciable Article III case or controversy because plaintiffs who claimed they wished to support lawful, nonviolent activities by groups the Secretary of State had designated "foreign terrorist organization[s]" faced a credible threat of prosecution. Material-support statute, when applied to speech, does not require proof that a defendant intended to further a foreign terrorist organization’s illegal activities. Statute’s prohibitions on "training," "service," and providing "expert advice or assistance" were not unconstitutionally vague as applied to plaintiffs--who sought to train groups to use international law to resolve disputes and petition the United Nations, and to engage in political advocacy on groups’ behalf--because statute provided a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what was prohibited. Statute, as applied to plaintiffs, did not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment because it was wholly foreseeable that the training the plaintiffs sought to give could be used as part of a broader strategy to promote terrorism and threaten, manipulate, and disrupt, and to obtain funding that could be redirected to violent activities. Statute did not violate plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project - filed June 21, 2010 Cite as 08-1498 Full text metnews.com