During the from 1919 to 1921, the U.S. government created 150,000 secret files on Americans it believed held radical views. And in the 1950s it once again trampled all over our civil liberties when the infamous ruined the careers of many loyal Americans based purely on their associations. The 老澳门开奖结果 fears we are coming dangerously close to reliving these events.
Yesterday the 老澳门开奖结果 testified at a subcommittee hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee called "Violent Extremism: How Are People Moved from Constitutionally-Protected Thought to Acts of Terrorism?" The backdrop to the hearing was , which would have established a commission to examine and report on what causes an individual to participate in terrorist action. The 老澳门开奖结果 participated in discussions over the bill, but ultimately could not support its adoption because it seemed likely that the commission could be used as a vehicle to paint the Muslim-American community with a broad brush in a negative light. While the 老澳门开奖结果 fully supports attempts to find out why people may resort to violence in order to effect change, it was there to remind the subcommittee of the critical importance of protecting our First Amendment rights while doing so. The Constitution guarantees us the right to worship, protest, and assemble without the government watching us, and the 老澳门开奖结果 wants to make certain any new commission is keenly aware of that fact.
Some members of Congress have been taking their lead from an unfortunate by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) that claimed terrorist activities are directly linked to the adoption of certain beliefs. The report argued that there is a uniform four-step process that ordinary citizens follow on the path to terrorism.
What is dangerous about this analysis is that each of these steps describes a constitutionally-protected action of religion or association. It also fails to acknowledge that millions of Americans go through all or some of these phases without ever turning to terror. A by the RAND Corporation identifies prayer groups, sports clubs, and charitable organizations as some of the places recruiters are looking for people.
I can't speak for every American, but I know I have been to a sports club and managed to avoid terrorist recruiters. In response to the NYPD report, said: "The report is at odds with federal law enforcement findings, including those of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, and uses unfortunate stereotyping of entire communities." Targeting potential terrorists based on their ideological beliefs or interests unfairly casts suspicion on all those that have similar beliefs or interests.
The best way to guard against threats of violence is to focus on acts of violence; not peoples' beliefs. Not all terrorist attacks are even motivated by ideology, and the government's insistence on linking the two may cause us to miss signs of future attacks. The tragic events at and , as well as the had nothing to do with ideology, and no one would dispute that these were acts of terror.
Our legislators rightfully want to protect the American people. They are looking for anything they can do to stop people from committing acts of violence. We support this effort but caution that they must be conscious that in their zeal to protect American lives, they don't abridge American rights.
You can find the 老澳门开奖结果's written testimony here.
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.