Wouldn't being a member of a group that you know engages in illegal behavior be conspiracy or something like that?

It is one thing to voice a favorable opinion with regard to such an organization, but doesn't being a member imply more direct involvement than speech? Especially if by being a member you are supporting the organization in some way such as membership dues, hosting meetings, or even bringing the beer?

Ok, well I'm UNamerican so have given the FA about 3 seconds of thought in my whole life. Given that, I understand it is mainly about freedom of speech, so I would say No. Perhaps as an exercise you or someone else could explain why it does?

I'm personally arguing that the First Amendment does not protect against advocacy of violence directly. Its actually a very shaky discussion, due to there being several slightly conflicting precedents depending on the exact nature of the speech in question.

But the entire idea of this brief is that while I do argue for one side, I present counter-arguments (and then answer their points). All normal lawyer mental flexibility crap. :P

Is this project inspired by the german-islamist-terrorists in the news?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15037432,00.html

I doubt it, if for no other reason that I think the topics were picked out weeks ago.

Here's an attempt at a counter-argument:

How do you define 'advocacy of violence'?
A) "Kill them!"
B) "Liberate yourself!"
C) "Resist!"
D) "Those people suck!"
E) "Those people are wrong to disagree with us."
F) "Those people should be nicer to us."

- are all those examples advocacy of violence? Who decides?

The definition that keeps cropping up goes something like this: the statement "was intended to incite further lawless action on the part of the crowd in the vicinity of appellant and was likely to produce such action."

I would think that the thrust of this would fall under A and possibly B under your examples, simply due to the proviso that it be advocating illegal conduct. (And D-F aren't advocating anything illegal)

Of course, the IRA has had public representatives for a long time, which the British seemed to tolerate.

Aha but language is tricky! Your definition sounds exactly like an incident that happened in New Zealand recently, where a singer decided to sing "Fuck the Police" when, as he well knew, the police were moving through the crowd checking for illegalities. So, is "Fuck the Police" an advocation of violence?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/music/news/article.cfm?c_id=264&objectid=10718865

"Mommy, what does fuck mean?"

Well, two things. 1, the UK doesn't have an absolutely gurantee of free speech. There is precedent, and statuatory laws in place for it, but its not at the same legal level as the First Amendment (in theory, the current Parliament could legislate away freedom of speech on a simple majority vote, from my understanding. It wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't. The US Congress literally cannot nullify the First Amendment by a simple majority... or even a super majority. Amending the Constitution is a non-trivial process.)

Two, I see to recall Sin Fein representatives being very careful about how they talked about the Troubles in public events (granted, most of what I recall is post Good Friday agreement).

Friendliness Under Consent of the King. You Americans are so lost :)

According to Hess v Indiana, merely saying that something should happen is protected speech. (The case involves an antiwar protester being arrested for saying "We'll take that fucking street back" after the crowd was cleared back by sheriff's deputies. He was arrested, and the Supreme Court overturned it on appeal due to his speech not being intended to advocate an immediate illegal act (clear and present danger).

Well exactly, it comes down to interpretation of semantics, which really means what the court feels like doing on the day. So not a good law.

I'd disagree that it is bad law, simply for the fact that circumscribing Constitutional freedoms should be done only when there is an overwhelming preponderance of reasons to do so (the clear and present danger). If they have to err, I'd prefer to err on the side of excessive freedom of speech rather than circumscribing speech, particularly during public protests.

However, the dissenting opinion by Rehnquist is actually fairly well written and raises some excellent points (I normally have a rather large antipathy for Rehnquist's legal reasoning... it often seems to me that he decides what he wants the result to be, and works backwards to justify it. He's no Scalia, whose opinions I dislike, but whose legal reasoning is far more ironclad)

I agree, by "So not a good law." I was referring to the proposed law.

I agree with the 'clear and present danger' argument. But can you clarify where this law would apply? You started out with International Terrorists and then seemed to define it more precisely to apply to local street-level rabble-rousing?

Well, in my argument, I'm specifically defining the theoretical terrorist organization as an organization with the capability, training and the will to carry out acts of political violence. A blanket law prohibiting membership in any organization that has any violence as part of it would definitely fail due to it being over-broad.

I might add that I personally don't think this law should exist, or that it could pass muster constitutionally (which is why I'm making myself argue the opposite).

Ok, so the law is aimed at the 'propagandists' of the terrorist organisation?
So the people giving *direct" orders for the carrying out of violence would not be covered by this law because they can be got by existing laws, e.g. conspiracy, aiding and abetting etc?

If you answer yes to the above questions, then I guess the law would be targetting anyone who non-specifically advocates general violence against others. So for example anyone who rabble-rouses towards violence, or produces a DVD in the manner of 'The Eternal Jew'.

I would actually support the censorship of such material, but not the prosecution of the people involved.

I would argue the current laws are already adequate to needs.

I think it would permit it if membership could be seen as helping the organization to its ends per se. If you are actively helping in acts of terrorism, even if only as part of a group, you are not just engaged in expressive conduct.
The FA does not protect criminal conspiracy, after all.

Here comes the next issue. Define terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. By all rights, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, but my country views it as an act of civil disobedience intent on securing our freedoms by showing our resolve.

Yeah, and John Brown was hanged for treason, so who knows what terrorism is.

Terrorism is an act of war that does not conform to the norms of war at the time in which it occurs. History is written by the victors, so several actions within the American Revolution that were, at the time, terrorism are now "tactical advantages." The Boston Tea Party, however, I'm not so sure if it counts as an act of war. As far as I know, and I've never really looked at it hard, they didn't actually fight anyone, and the tea was hardly a military target. It seems more like vandalism/destruction of property than terrorism.

Where di you get that definition.

Websters says terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." It says nothing about it having to be an act of war. Hell, God committed a major act of terrorism to coerce Pharoah to let the Jews go when he saw to it that the first born male of every Egyptian household was killed in one night. Talk about your acts of terrorism.

Well, I suppose the question isn't "what is terrorism?" The question is "when is it justified?"

Well, it would seem disingenuous to ask us to define terrorism if you intended to use the dictionary to do it. I was going by my understanding of the popular definition.

The Boston Tea Party, then, was certainly not terrorism by that definition. The loss of product isn't really terror, in my eyes. I wouldn't necessarily call it systematic (it was one incident, albeit a highly organized one), and it definitely wasn't for purposes of coercion, although that's not necessary by Webster's definition.

I guess I agree the BTP wasn't an act of terrorism in that the act itself didn't terrorize anyone, just an act of violence with intent to affirm resolve.

Of course, my favorite act of terrorism is from the Godfather when the Vegas big wig woke to find his favorite horses head next to him in bed. No one was killed, but the message was clearly "we can get to you and next time it won't be your horse who loses his head".

Webster's definition matches what was in my head.

As an example, just here locally a kid (teenager) told a teacher that he had some guns in his bag, and refused to drop the bag. So they had to evacuate the whole school and bring in the cops who eventually wrestled the kid to the ground to gain control of him and the bag. There were no guns in the bag and he was of course detained and then officially arrested.

To me that is an act of terrorism. He disrupted a lot of people's lives with terror, possibly forever scarring some with fear.

In any case, when I read the opening post, the key seems to me to be what does it mean to be a "member" of a terrorist organization? If, as a member, your only act has been to vocally support the goals and acts of the organization, then maybe free speech applies. But if you have helped the organization in any meaningful way, then you have conspired with regard to whatever acts the organization has committed while you were a member.

But in that case, you wouldn't need a special law would you?

Just to note, fuck has nothing to do with fornication (or friendliness) under consent of king, and the word's etymology goes right back to before a Germanic language was spoken in the British Isles. It's part of the original Germanic vocabulary of English.