Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder

In the case of the Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, a group of individuals consisting of a retired judge, a human rights organization and various nonprofit groups (aka Humanitarian Law Project) was charged of providing “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” or “personnel” to terrorist organizations. However in the view of the Humanitarian Law Project, they were simply “[seeking] to engage in pure political speech and promoting lawful, nonviolent activity. Since there was technically no harm done and no solid proof of aiding terrorist groups, should the Humanitarian Law Project be charged with anything? In any case, the accusations are directed towards the HLP, a group that is supposedly dedicated to advancing human rights and promoting peace.

In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment argues that, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution also says, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Now the question is, should those laws be protected if the safety of the citizens is possibly in danger? Should freedom of speech prevail over protecting people from the risk of a future terrorist attack? Where we draw the line is accordance to our views of what is considered peaceful speech and assembly and what is considered teaching and promoting possibly dangerous attacks on our people.

According to John Stuart Mill, all individuals should have the right to act and say whatever they please, as long as it doesn’t violate nor harm others. Therefore, I believe that the harm principle is an important idea to keep in mind when discussing issues like this. As a prominent advocate for the Freedom of Speech, even John Stuart Mills has some limitations for what Freedom of Speech really entails. I think that the idea that society does not have the right to intervene if no harm is being done to others or should be applied in this case. Considering there was no harm done and the Humanitarian Law Project’s intention on the surface was to promote peace, it doesn’t seem as though this group should be criminalized for their actions.

The scrutiny level that I feel is appropriate would probably be intermediate scrutiny. I chose intermediate due to the fact that the government did not have sufficient evidence that the speech was harmful and should be regulated. They also did not have significant proof that the Humanitarian Law Project was attempting to aid terrorist groups.

In conclusion, I feel that as long as the Humanitarian Law Project does not have the intention of harming people, their speech should be protected under the First Amendment. The Humanitarian Law Project proved to only be having peaceful, nonviolent meetings therefore no danger was present…nor was danger to the people an objective in these meetings. Though I definitely believe that the safety of the people should be a top priority, it is also important that every group deserves to have the same rights—as along as the group is not a threat.