Mark Graber considers the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project yesterday. The ruling upheld a definition of “material support” for terrorism that includes informing designated terror groups about how to resolve conflicts without violence because such activities could free up resources to commit further acts of terror:
Consider whether Humanitarian Law Project permits Congress to ban organizations from handing out Shakespeare plays to teenagers. Most teenagers have a budget. They spent a certain percentage of their budget on innocent activities and a certain percentage of their money on less than innocent activities. If Chief Justice Roberts is correct, giving Shakespeare to troubled teenagers is likely to cause teenagers to divert money that might have gone to innocent activities (buying books) to less than innocent activities (buying drugs). At least Congress could make this decision. If Congress has a compelling interest in stopping the drug trade, then Congress has the power to prohibit people from giving books to teenagers. Such as the logic of Humanitarian Law Project.
Traditional free speech doctrine encourages efforts to substitute speech for violence. Just we think giving teenagers Shakespeare might encourage them to spend more time reading classic literature, so making speech cheap is more likely to cause organizations to pursue more legitimate means of achieving their goals. Congress until this week could regulate speech only in cases of incitement to imminent lawless violence. When terrorists are involved, advocacy of imminent lawful behavior is also beyond the pale of constitutional protection.
Can the pro-pothead curriculum of our public schools and elite scholarly institutions be stopped? Or do we need a Global War On Shakespeare? How much are schools providing material support for the illicit activities of teenage drug dealers by teaching them math? What about science class? They learn about weights and how to use bunsen burners in there, you know.
Also can we get more liberal snark on the Supreme Court please? If the liberal wing is going to keep losing, they might as well do it with more style.
— A. Serwer
