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)

 

 

 

Related News

Summer Access to Westlaw, LexisNexis AND Bloomberg Law 2024 WESTLAW Continuing Students Continuing students automatically get FULL access all year...
Yale Law Library in collaboration with the Center for Open Science (COS), is excited to announce the launch of Law Archive, the only free open access...
This is an update on the status of Lexis and Westlaw generative AI products: Lexis+ AI As of January 16, 2024, Lexis+ AI has been turned on for all...