According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each person’s liberty should be protected, and the government should not suppress their freedom of speech. However, public safety is also essential in that the government should control dangerous speech in order to prevent danger to the public. Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project illustrates the difficulty to see the boundary in whether the government should step in or not. However, freedom of speech should be sacrificed and the government should be able to restrict (yet not caramelized) the speech when the social interest in public safety would possibly be imperiled. To discuss the issue, I refer to Philosopher Zachariah Chafee and his ideas of protection of social interest speech. Also, the theory of the case of Dennis v. U.S. would also be applied to support my argument.
The case of Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder was been filed in 1998. Humanitarian Law Project, which consisted of a medical doctor, human rights organization and other several non-profit organizations, is a non-violent political advocacy group who advocates and teaches to “reduce conflict, advance human rights and promote peace (pg21).” In the case, the respondent was accused of providing “material support” including advocating and teaching human rights and English to designated terrorist organizations. Although the support was not given to promote unlawful activities, providing “expert advice or assistance,” “training,” “service” or “personnel” to such groups is classified as a serious crime under the U.S. court system. On the other side, the plaintiff side claims that they are presenting pure political speech which should be protected under the First amendment.
The main issue is whether their freedom of speech should be protected under the First amendment and how much control the government should have on these speeches; also, the obscure borderline between pure speech and advocating/teaching. According to Zechariah Chafee, a professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of Free Speech in the United States, claims “the great interest in free speech should be sacrificed only when the interest in public safety is really imperiled” (page 425). He states that speeches that serve social interests should be protected while speeches that present danger should be constrained. In the case, Humanitarian Law Project’s education and advocacy to terrorist groups may be dangerous because there always is a possibility that members of these terrorist groups might conduct unlawful and dangerous activities with the knowledge. In other words, Humanitarian Law Project may unintentionally feed these terrorist groups with information to harm the U.S. It may be just a moderate risk rather than result in immediate harm; however, the government should carefully address the issue because there always is a possibility that these terrorist groups could use the knowledge (such as English) for unlawful activities.
In order to fully prevent the possible danger, I think that the government should employ Intermediate scrutiny to restrict their speech. However, the government has to have substantial reasons, and they should not be vague or overbroad. I would not apply strict scrutiny to this case because the danger may not be very immediate; moreover, it can be more like tendency or a risk. Also, minimal scrutiny seems unreasonable for the case because members of these groups that the plaintiffs supported were labeled as “terrorists” by the government.
The past case I would refer to is Dennis v. the U.S. in 1948. In this case, Eugene Dennis, who was the secretary general of the Communist party, was charged for organizing the Communist party to teach and advocate the overthrow and destruction of the U.S. government (page 60). The court decision may be against J.S. Mill’s harm principle because the gathering may not cause an immediate harm to other people; however, I believe that national security and public safety should not be sacrificed to protect freedom of speech; especially in this case, their goal was to harm others’ right. I choose this case because it is an example of punishing a possible harmful source before they actively conduct unlawful activities. For the case of Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project, I believe the same strategy can be applied in that the court should restrict their speech in order to prevent further outcomes.
In conclusion, public safety is an important and essential aspect in society especially the U.S. is targeted by some terrorist groups and has been attacked. I believe that Humanitarian Law Project did not have any intention of violating laws. However, I think freedom of speech for the plaintiff in the case should be restricted because their speech may endanger public safety in the U.S. which should be a primal social interest. Although their pure political speech should be protected by the First amendment, according to philosopher Chafee, social interests should be reflected to determine if the speech should be protected. In this case, I believe that Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate to apply because the government still needs a substantial reason to restrict their speech, and vagueness should be avoided. In addition, Dennis v. the U.S. may be a good example of punishing a possible evil. Although their speech did not directly threaten the government or other people, they were still charged for conducting various Communist educations to members. Because terrorism is such a big issue in the world, I think that the government should serve public interests and prevent possible unlawful activities.
