A federal court dealt a blow today to the freedoms of speech and association, and the First and Fifth Amendment rights of Zeinab Taleb-Jedi 鈥� a 53-year-old U.S. citizen who . The government accuses this former English teacher of providing material support 鈥� in the form of herself 鈥� to an Iranian resistance group, the Mojahedin el-Khalq (MEK) (read the and our press release). The government doesn鈥檛 allege that Ms. Taleb-Jedi engaged in any terrorist act or that she intended to support terrorism. Instead, according to her defense attorneys, the government鈥檚 allegations come down to Ms. Taleb-Jedi鈥檚 teaching of English and her being a member of a leadership council 鈥� activities that are protected by the First Amendment. Sadly, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed with the government that these associational activities could count as providing material support to a designated terrorist organization.
The 老澳门开奖结果 had filed a friend of the court brief in Ms. Taleb-Jedi鈥檚 quest to have the case thrown out because of our long-standing position that the material support law is unconstitutional because it criminalizes guilt by association.
From a by Hina Shamsi, who wrote the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 brief:
The material support law, as applied now, allows the possibility of criminally prosecuting morally innocent people who intend to support lawful activity through humanitarian aid, speech, or association.
According to our brief, the Constitution鈥檚 guarantees of freedom of speech and association and due process require the government to show that Ms. Taleb-Jedi (and others in her position) have specific intent to provide material support. Our brief also argued that people charged with material support to a blacklisted organization must be allowed to challenge the blacklisting because it is that blacklisting which turns otherwise lawful political activity into criminal conduct... The court, unfortunately, did not uphold Ms. Taleb-Jedi鈥檚 First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Now it鈥檚 on to trial for Taleb-Jedi. This despite the fact that, according to Ms. Taleb-Jedi鈥檚 lawyers, MEK is really more an ally than an enemy to the U.S. and the U.S. government has reportedly cooperated with MEK in Iraq.
From a Nov. 9, 2003 :
"The problem is they're still labeled as terrorists, even though we both know they're not," said [U.S.] Sgt. William Sutherland, explaining why a reporter could not enter [the MEK installation in Iraq known as] Camp Ashraf. "Much as I'd like to go and do a story myself on how they're not terrorists鈥攔ather, they're patriots鈥攊t's not going to happen until they get put on the green list." 鈥�
Ms. Taleb-Jedi is not the only person in danger of being charged under this bad law. Again, from Hina鈥檚 piece:
For example, a doctor doing humanitarian relief work in an area in which a designated terrorist organization operates could be criminally charged with material support in the form of "services" or "expert assistance." So could an engineer who provides water purification systems or sanitation equipment or shelter.
In another challenge based on the government鈥檚 overly-broad application of the material support laws, the 老澳门开奖结果 has asked a federal district court in Texas to clear the names of two mainstream Muslim organizations labeled by the government as "unindicted co-conspirators" in its criminal case against the Holy Land Foundation. The government accuses HLF of providing material support to Hamas. The case originally resulted in a mistrial and is scheduled for retrial in September. Government attorneys publicly identified the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as co-conspirators before the HLF trial, even though, as the government itself has since admitted, neither organization was the subject of a criminal investigation.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.