R.I.P. Free Speech, 1791-2010

Attention Hamas: I strongly recommend that you adopt peaceful non-violent civil disobedience in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King as the best way to force Israel to lift the blockade in Gaza.

There. I've just committed a crime in the eyes of the Obama MALadministration. Come get me, motherfuckers.

David Cole:

According to today’s Supreme Court decision, advocating for human rights and peace can be prosecuted as a “terrorist” crime, punishable by 15 years in prison.

It does not matter that the speaker intends to support only nonviolent activity, and indeed seeks to discourage a resort to violence. It does not matter if the speech in fact convinces its listeners to abandon violence.

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity. The court reasoned that it is conceivable that such speech might burnish a designated group’s image, and thereby “legitimize” it, and therefore Congress can make all such speech a crime.

This has nothing to do with terrorism or law enforcement or national security.

This is about destroying the foundation of American liberty: unfettered free speech.

The Criminal Conservative Cabal that runs the Supreme Court has declared constitutional a law making speech advocating legal activities illegal.

When did we repeal the First Amendment? Because only after repealing the First Amendment could any member of the reality-based community find this totalitarian abomination "constitutional."

And who was our UnDemocratic, UnAmerican, Anti-First-Amendment winning lawyer? None other than Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Liberal my ass.

Although the Liberal Lion Lamb she is replacing - John Paul Stevens - voted with the frightwingers in blasting the First Amendment into smithereens.

Cole continues:

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protected even the right to advocate criminal activity, so long as one’s advocacy was not intended and likely to produce an imminent crime. And it ruled that citizens had a right to associate with a group engaged in both legal and illegal activities, as lone as they intended to further only the group’s lawful activities.

Today, by contrast, the court rules that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.

The decision has deeply disturbing implications. It means that when President Jimmy Carter did election monitoring in Lebanon, and met with all of the parties to the election — including Hezbollah, a designated “terrorist group” — to provide them with his advice on what constitutes a fair election, he was committing the crime of providing “material support,” in the form of “expert advice.”

It means that when The New York Times and The Washington Post published op-eds by a Hamas leader, they were engaged in the crime of providing “material support” to a designated terrorist group, because to publish the op-ed they had to coordinate with a spokesperson from Hamas.

And it means that my clients, a retired judge and an established human rights group, cannot continue to work for peace and human rights without risking long prison terms.

Those who defend this law often focus on the provision of funds — not at issue before the Supreme Court — and argue that money is fungible, and can be used for any purpose.

But human rights advocacy is not fungible. It cannot be turned into guns and bullets. It is designed to persuade, not coerce. It is, in short, what the First Amendment is all about. But it is now a crime, and according to this Supreme Court, the First Amendment poses no obstacle to its suppression.

Read the whole thing.

Digby concludes:

The bottom line is that money is now considered equivalent to speech in more ways than just electioneering. If you believe that multi-national corporations are exercising a right to free speech by spending unlimited funds to influence elections to their benefit, then you would naturally assume that exercising your right to free speech to influence organizations is equivalent to giving them money. The consistent concept for this court isn't free speech at all, it's their belief that money equals speech. I don't find this outcome surprising in the least. Once you make the leap then this is the logical outcome. And I would guess it won't be the last time we see this.