“the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity.” Thus, “the court rule that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.” Then-Solicitor-General Elena Kagan argued the winning Obama DOJ position.

The FBI already consider peace activists low level terrorists, there will likely be a codification of that by adding such groups to the blacklist, that way they can imprison anyone lawfully protesting for 15 years when they want to. Any and all Occupy groups will likely also be placed on the blacklist.

Which means that people like Al Gore can go to jail for talking about global warming (since environmental groups are treated as terrorists who use "intimidation" to keep corporations from making money).

But Exxon can not go to jail for spending millions on a SuperPac that tells voters to vote only for politcians who deny global warming.

In other words, anything you say that is anti-corporate is now illegal. Anything a corporation says to make money is protected.

Democracy at its finest!

Sorry I don't see where the SCOTUS has made this ruling. Please explain.

As Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, who represented the plaintiffs, explained, this was literally “the first time ever” that “the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity.” Thus, “the court rule that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.”

It is the opinion of the plaintiffs attorney that it represents that.
Do you understand the difference?

Does your opinion really carry that much more weight than the professor explaining you are wrong?

You must be a super genius



Now could you explain why you disagree as it clearly states exactly what you deny in plain English.
I am willing to hear your argument but you have yet to make one - only a statement that claims it doesn't mean what the words in the law say, I am dying to find out why we are all so mistaken

"Greenwald, who has followed the story closely, wrote earlier this week:

This dissent has to be read word for word and understood. You literally have to read every word and understand what the dissent is trying to convey. For example:



Does this mean that all the activities at issue, represent all activities performed or the ones "at issue", it means those at issue.

Does "involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends" mean that only "the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends"? No. It does not say that at all.



This is dissent and it is valid dissent, however dissent is dissent and can't be interpreted as the meaning of the ruling, only the objections of the dissenting justices.



This is the equivalent of a lawyer saying "Today an injustice was perpetrated. It's a characterization of the ruling, not a de facto legal definition of said ruling.



This is pretty clear, if you are providing material support by means of communication and or advocacy to a group designated as a terrorist organization in coordination with them, you are committing a crime. I don't like it anymore than you do, but that is a law for you.

Now as to your personal aspersions. Keep in mind that attacking an individuals intelligence like a little kid, is a reflection of a lack of maturity on your part.

My opinion carries as much weight as any other poster here. You are basing your characterization on reading a cherry picked post with a hyperbolic headline. Read the article and the background. You will find this is quite narrow, and while it does impede on speech, it is more like the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or "impeding the enemies of the U.S. from paying retired politicians to champion their causes, or legitimize their organizations for money", than stopping a protest against the government by the citizens.

When the Supreme Court made a ruling on corporate spending on US elections, many experts said "this will allow foreign interference in US elections with very few limits". Of course the Supreme Court ruling wasn't "We hereby allow foreign stockholders to meddle in US elections" but that was the consequence. If I am understanding your objections clearly, I hope this helps.

Thanks for the rational response.

Citizens United is a complete horror, and I agree the consequences of that ruling extended to compromise a hundred years of legislation, and has screwed us blue.

My argument with this post is that the SCOTUS has never made the ruling that is claimed on the headline. Had I been on the panel, I would have inserted language that specifically would state the bounds of interpretation. I agree with the dissent which I find to be defined by the word "like" more than anything else. SG Kagan however had it right.

I am being very precise in my interpretation, I have spent most of the last 20 years reading, and writing legalese in contract negotiations, and recently (since 2005) a patent I wrote, and applied for that was granted recently.

I do agree this is in the slippery slope category, and I believe we have a flawed government.

Too pedantic? You could be right. It would not be the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Subsequent_developments

If it means advocatign for peace and justice verbally, then the majority SC has turned this country into totalitarianism.

how ridiculas the ruling in 2010 was. By going after both GOP and Democratic party heavies they will show that taking money from muslims may not be really much of a crime. Either that, or they'll remove that particular group from the "Terrorists" list.
Hopefully, there will be enough heavy hitters in the coming Occupy events that they won't be able to make the Terrorist label stick.

Just some low level government hacks word?

members of "a blacklisted group". Are they not allowed equal representation and health and happiness?

A new scary menace to help the feds erode our civil rights. And just watch groups that should know better jump like fish to the bait. "Ooo, those bad people, taking money from ___. We better stop that! Incarcerate them all!"

When they send Dick Cheney and the Koch Bros. to jail for doing business with Iran, then they can send speakers to jail for accepting speaking fees from Iran.