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.
Overall, I think your analysis of this case and the support you employ to arrive at your conclusion all seems reasonable. Your use of Zacharia Chafee’s philosophy which clearly distinguishes between social and individual interests is a strong support base for your stance that public safety is at risk here. Chafee’s philosophy protects speech that serves the public interest under the standard of clear and present danger and individual speech is not given any protection. I appreciate the clarity of your opinion that public safety always comes before free speech – even if it is of a purely political nature.
ReplyDeleteOne important aspect to consider in this case however, is whether public safety is indeed put at grave risk, or whether peace and social safety is promoted by the kind of speech attempted by the Humanitarian Law Project. It seems to me that a project that teaches a willing audience about peaceful conflict resolution would offer a positive influence on society. I understand that the risk is there, which according to a bad tendency standard may be grounds for restriction, but all in all, I think that speech like this should be promoted. Our current efforts against terrorism haven’t been entirely successful, so why not try a new approach.
Although I may not entirely agree with your conclusion, I still think that your argument holds strong and that it supports your own conclusion very effectively. I think your use of Dennis v. United States is appropriate, and I also agree that there is a hint of clear and present danger in this case, which leaves it open to restriction.
I really liked your analysis and the examples that you used to support your points and your conclusion. I think you bring up some important points about the relationship between free speech and public safety. I agree that public safety could be at risk in the case of Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project. Although the Humanitarian Law Project appears to have good intentions, I get the feeling that there could be negative affects to the United States if they were able to aid terrorist groups and promote peace and human rights. From my understanding, many terrorist groups seem to be set in the way that they do things, and have little desire to try anything new (such as peaceful expression and conflict resolution).
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart's harm principle effectively supports your argument as well, and I also think that although immediate harm may not take place, there is potential for harm to occur in the future. I think that the concept of clear and present danger is applicable, because there is a high possibility that harm may happen in the near future if the Humanitarian Law Project is granted permission to interface with terrorist groups and attempt to spread their teachings.
In conclusion, I agree with your statement that public safety must come first, and that in this case, public safety may be put into harms way. Intermediate scrutiny is definitely the way to go, as it is important that the government provides substantial reasons for their restriction of speech before regulating it.
I appreciate the way that you are adamant about the safety of the public coming before an individual’s right to free speech. You pick the best examples of what philosophy (Chafee) and what scrutiny (Intermediate) to argue your case well. However, there are quite a few parts that do not seem to be as well-argued and need to be strengthened.
ReplyDeleteWhere you say “freedom of speech should be sacrificed and the government should be able to restrict the speech when the social interest in public safety would possibly be imperiled” it sounds as though you are actually advocating against free speech because the government can claim that anything “would possibly” put the public’s safety imperil and could successfully prohibit most speech because of how vague a statement like that is. This seems to justify minimal scrutiny, where “the government must prove only that it has a rational reason to regulate
or punish speech & restriction not overly broad or vague” (handout).
You use part of Chafee’s quote “speeches that serve social interests should be protected while speeches that present danger should be constrained” to justify restricting the HLP’s speech because the HLP provided dangerous education that may lead the terrorist groups to conduct unlawful and dangerous activities. This seems to contradict your earlier statement that HLP is “a non-violent political advocacy group” who teaches to “reduce conflict, advance human rights and promote peace”. I feel that the HLP is actually attempting to promote peace with their speech. Do you feel that they are putting public safety at a grave risk and if so, what speech could they use to promote peace? I feel that they are well within their rights and would defend them in a trial like this. One other thing that would strengthen your argument is watching your spelling - you say “the government should be able to restrict (yet not caramelized)” which I interpreted to mean criminalize but they are vastly different in meaning.
I believe you make a strong case Iki, in the name of the protection of the people of the United States. This was my first reaction when first reading through this case. I believed that freedom of speech should be under intermediate scrutiny for the protection of our communities, even if it may cause those individuals or groups like the Humanitarian Law Project to undergo legal proceedings. Yet, I knew that siding with the government on this belief would be an immediate response of fear on my behalf. Ever since the catastrophe of 9/11 by Terrorists, I have been more fearful and precautious of others. This was especially true when our Homeland Security enacted a color scale to represent our national threat level. This was seen in the media constantly, and my plans and that of my families for the day would be impacted by how high or low the national threat was for that particular day or weekend. Quite interestingly, with this case being current, our national threat level is elevated or color referenced as yellow. Now, I am more inclined to agree with you Iki, as I believe that these legal proceedings can protect us at a larger scale. Also, this reminds me of the recent additions to our security in our airports and the comparison that can be made to this case in order to protect and move forward with the same level of intermediate scrutiny. The people of this nation, myself included have cited that they agree with the addition of full transparent body scans at the airport, even though it means sacrificing our physical privacy, in order to be protected from future terrorism flight attacks.
ReplyDelete