Before Justices, First Amendment and Aid to Terrorists

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — The line between speech protected by the First Amendment and aid to terrorists appeared elusive at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the justices’ lively questioning complicated rather than clarified matters. They discussed travel to Cuba, the Communist and Nazi Parties, Tokyo Rose, treason and whether it is a crime to teach a terrorist how to play the harmonica.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the law at issue in the case, which bars providing material support to terrorist organizations, as “a vital weapon in this nation’s continuing struggle against international terrorism.”

Even seemingly benign help is prohibited, Ms. Kagan said.

“Hezbollah builds bombs,” she said of the militant Islamic group. “Hezbollah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs. That’s the entire theory behind the statute.”

But several justices seemed to view the case as more difficult than that, at least where the help at issue took the form of speech rather than conduct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24scotus.html?th&emc=th

[ashling]

1. So when the govt. provides help to "faith based" groups

they are also providing support to the religious organization and religious purposes behind those groups.

the logic is the same. :shrug:

[groovedaddy]

2. Yep. n.t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. What if they incorporated...

...and then decided to deny medical coverages?

What does that constitute?