Professor Amann Comments on Supreme Court Ruling for NY Times
Professor Diane Marie Amann contributed an essay on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project to Room for Debate, a feature of the New York Times website. The ruling upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide "material support" to foreign terrorist groups even if that support consists of providing advice to such groups regarding non-terrorist activities.
Professor Amann's essay focuses on the exemption for "independent speech" outlined in the ruling, which allows for individuals to espouse goals held by terrorist organizations as long as this is done without connection to the organizations. "As stated by the court's majority, the result strikes a balance between concerns about national security and constitutional guarantees of individual liberty," writes Professor Amann. "That balance depends on the ability of individuals to speak without fear of prosecution for speech that falls outside the confines of the opinion. If the line drawn in fact chills such speech, or if prosecutors choose to press cases outside the stated confines, the attempted accommodation will have proved a failure."
Diane Marie Amann is a Professor at the UC Davis School of Law and Director of the California International Law Center at King Hall. Issues related to post-9/11 detention, interrogation, and prosecution are a focus of her scholarship.