How to Restrict Political Advocacy

In an essay appearing in the Winter, 2011 issue of the Temple Law Review, Prof. Owen Fiss reviews the Roberts Court's 2010 opinion in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project -- a decision supporitng Congress's authority to criminalize political advocacy on behalf of foreign terrorist organizations. My caveman librarian reading of the case went something like this: "violence BAD, incitement to violence BAD, coordinated advocacy on behalf of terrorist group BAD, independent advocacy on behalf of terrorist group GOOD!" Prof. Fiss's analysis is much more refined and engaging as he demonstrates  that all three branches of government share responsibility for incremental post-9/11 losses of liberty.

Further reading:

Transcript of Oral Argument (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, Feb. 23, 2010);

Owen Fiss, "Law Is Everywhere", 117 Yale Law Jouranl 256 (2007); 

Owen Fiss, The Irony of Free Speech (1996)

 

 

 

Published In: