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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that your conclusion that the speech proposed by the Humanitarian Law Project should be protected is highly rational. After all, why should the law prohibit pure speech that is aimed at promoting peace and reducing violence? The issue argued by the Humanitarian Law Project is that current law surrounding interaction with terrorist groups is far too broad and because of its broadness, places restrictions on speech, even if it should be applauded for its boldness in attempting to mend current issues of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy regarding the harm principle, I think it is important that you further define your definition of harm. In your theory of communication law, do you rely on the “bad tendency” theory, the “clear and present danger” theory, or on the standard of incitement”? In the middle of your argument, when speaking of Mill’s philosophy, you argue that because the speech in question did not harm, it should not be restricted by law. However, at the end of your argument you say 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.” By this statement it seems that you are relying on the bad tendency test, while previously you relied more on a standard of incitement. That being said, if the Humanitarian Law Project had the intention of causing harm, even if the harm had not yet been manifested, would you argue to restrict their speech? Or would you require that there be an imminent and immediate threat of danger? I think by answering this question, you could then proceed to deciding whether to model the proceedings of this case after Brandenburg v. Ohio or Dennis v. United States.
I like the background that you give concerning the actual case. When you say the HLP is a group, “supposedly dedicated to advancing human rights and promoting peace” and their “intention on the surface was to promote peace” it becomes clear that you are very skeptical of the organization, as though you do not believe what they say they are doing. With this in mind, I appreciate that you are clearly able to look beyond your feelings and scrutinize this case the way you do. You stick to the ideal application of the law in determining what rights of speech deserve protection.
ReplyDeleteBased on the philosophy you chose, that “all individuals should have the right to act and say whatever they please, as long as it doesn’t violate nor harm others” I am inclined to say that Chafee may be a better choice for the philosopher. Chafee would preserve the HLP’s speech so long as it serves the social interest and would constrain speech they give that presents a clear and present danger. In choosing Mill, the definition of what can harm others is vague and in this case may be too difficult to determine. It seems as though strict scrutiny would need to be applied with Mill while with Chafee intermediate scrutiny would fit well with his emphasis on worthwhile speech as opposed to worthless speech. With intermediate scrutiny as you outline, the government was lacking substantial evidence that HLP violated the law. As a Supreme Court Justice, I think you would be able to use Chafee’s theory best with intermediate scrutiny, as it seems rational for what you want to accomplish. I am curious about what court precedent (Brandenburg v US or Dennis v US) you would apply in your ruling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe background information that you provided on the HLP was very helpful in supporting your evidence that the HLP should have free speech to promote peace among terrorist organizations. Additionally, your use of the harm principle was effective in your application of intermediate scrutiny, which allows speech and punishes it only when harms seems likely.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seemed like you were more on the side of HLP, and based on your argument about the First Amendment rights that the HLP has, I wondered if strict scrutiny would be the way to go. You stated that no danger was present and that public safety wasn't an issue, therefore perhaps the government should have to provide a more compelling argument to support their side of the case. If you do decide that you prefer strict scrutiny, it would be interesting to see your take on how the Brandenberg v. Illinois case should affect the ruling on Holder v. HLP.
I would also agree with you Christina, on your basis of protecting speech under first amendment rights. I also believe that in future precedents HLP along with any other organization like it, should have added protection for their participation with other organizations that may be deemed “terrorist organizations,” by the United States government. I strongly support your statement of, “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." I would additionally support this statement by citing Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. I believe that while this matter is one that can be complex in the dynamics of free expression and national security, it is one that is simply protected under the First Amendment as free speech and additionally as stated above – by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This case is one that should not be left to the unjust persecution of the United States Government, and should be vehemently defended.
ReplyDelete