A federal court dealt a blow today to the freedoms of speech and association, and the First and Fifth Amendment rights of Zeinab Taleb-Jedi — a 53-year-old U.S. citizen who . The government accuses this former English teacher of providing material support — in the form of herself — to an Iranian resistance group, the Mojahedin el-Khalq (MEK) (read the and our press release). The government doesn’t allege that Ms. Taleb-Jedi engaged in any terrorist act or that she intended to support terrorism. Instead, according to her defense attorneys, the government’s allegations come down to Ms. Taleb-Jedi’s teaching of English and her being a member of a leadership council — activities that are protected by the First Amendment. Sadly, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed with the government that these associational activities could count as providing material support to a designated terrorist organization.
The ACLU had filed a friend of the court brief in Ms. Taleb-Jedi’s quest to have the case thrown out because of our long-standing position that the material support law is unconstitutional because it criminalizes guilt by association.
From a by Hina Shamsi, who wrote the ACLU’s brief:
The material support law, as applied now, allows the possibility of criminally prosecuting morally innocent people who intend to support lawful activity through humanitarian aid, speech, or association.
According to our brief, the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and association and due process require the government to show that Ms. Taleb-Jedi (and others in her position) have specific intent to provide material support. Our brief also argued that people charged with material support to a blacklisted organization must be allowed to challenge the blacklisting because it is that blacklisting which turns otherwise lawful political activity into criminal conduct... The court, unfortunately, did not uphold Ms. Taleb-Jedi’s First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Now it’s on to trial for Taleb-Jedi. This despite the fact that, according to Ms. Taleb-Jedi’s lawyers, MEK is really more an ally than an enemy to the U.S. and the U.S. government has reportedly cooperated with MEK in Iraq.
From a Nov. 9, 2003 :
"The problem is they're still labeled as terrorists, even though we both know they're not," said [U.S.] Sgt. William Sutherland, explaining why a reporter could not enter [the MEK installation in Iraq known as] Camp Ashraf. "Much as I'd like to go and do a story myself on how they're not terrorists—rather, they're patriots—it's not going to happen until they get put on the green list." …
Ms. Taleb-Jedi is not the only person in danger of being charged under this bad law. Again, from Hina’s piece:
For example, a doctor doing humanitarian relief work in an area in which a designated terrorist organization operates could be criminally charged with material support in the form of "services" or "expert assistance." So could an engineer who provides water purification systems or sanitation equipment or shelter.
In another challenge based on the government’s overly-broad application of the material support laws, the ACLU has asked a federal district court in Texas to clear the names of two mainstream Muslim organizations labeled by the government as "unindicted co-conspirators" in its criminal case against the Holy Land Foundation. The government accuses HLF of providing material support to Hamas. The case originally resulted in a mistrial and is scheduled for retrial in September. Government attorneys publicly identified the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as co-conspirators before the HLF trial, even though, as the government itself has since admitted, neither organization was the subject of a criminal investigation.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.