Terror advice decision causes uproar in United States, but could it happen here?

22 June 2010 by

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, United States Supreme Court – Read judgment

The US Supreme Court has ruled that it does not violate the US Constitution for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting a foreign organization that has been officially labeled as terrorist, even if the aim is to support such a group’s peaceful or humanitarian actions.

The judgment does not, of course, have any direct effect on the UK. But UK anti-terrorism legislation already provides the police with broad powers to prosecute those who support terrorist groups. The UK Government is likely to be keeping a close eye on the United States in order to guide future policy, in terms of what is and what is not beyond the pale in restriction freedom of expression.

The decision has inspired strong reaction in the US. In an editorial, the New York Times said… the ideals of an earlier time were eroded and free speech lost. By preserving an extremely vague prohibition on aiding and associating with terrorist groups, the court reduced the First Amendment rights of American citizens.” The Washington Post have saidWhat was less clear was how far the law could reach to punish activities with no link to terrorism. The court’s answer: Very far. In our opinion, it is the court that went too far.

Three out of the nine justices dissented (see from after page 36 of the leading judgment). Chief Justice John Roberts, who gave the leading judgment, held that:

The Preamble to the Constitution proclaims that the people of the United States ordained and established that charter of government in part to “provide for the common defence.” As Madison explained, “[s]ecurity against for­ eign danger is . . . an avowed and essential object of the American Union.” …. We hold that, in regulating the particular forms of support that plaintiffs seek to provide to foreign terror­ ist organizations, Congress has pursued that objective consistent with the limitations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

Significant qualifier

The US Supreme Court Blog (Scotus Blog) has provided a good analysis of the judgment and its likely impact on rights to free speech. One important point was the qualifier added by the court that “such activity may be  banned only if it is coordinated with or controlled by the overseas terrorist group. That limitation, however, may be fairly difficult for lower courts to apply case by case; the Court provided little specific guidance.” The post continues:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who wrote the majority opinion, sought to emphasize how narrow the ruling was, even while making it unmistakably clear that the Court was quite willing to defer to the political branches — Congress and the Executive Branch — on what they decide needs to be done to protect the U.S. from terrorism.  Thus, the main opinion moved back and forth between stress on its narrow scope, and an acceptance that even benign actions can be interpreted as helping to advance the dangerous goals of listed organizations…

This marked the first time in the Court’s recent interpretation of war powers that it moved away from issues related to capture and detention of terrorism suspects, and directly confronted the government’s authority to use its criminal law to punish or at least to disrupt or prevent terrorism acts.

Coming to the UK?

Similar powers already exist in the UK. Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a fairly wide-ranging prohibition on supporting terrorist organisations. This includes offences if a person “invites support for a proscribed organisation” including if he “arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting” which is to support or “further the activities” of that organisation. Section 15 makes it an offence to provide money or property to support a proscribed organisation, or invite another to do so.

There is no direct UK equivalent to the Holder case, but the courts have on a number of recent occasions ruled on issues relating to people and organisations who directly aid or may assist terrorist groups. The balancing act undertaken between the security needs of the State and the fundamental freedoms of individuals is a familiar one to the UK, and has informed much of the debate on anti-terrorism legislation in the past 10 years (see our previous posts on terrorism.)

For example, in the recent Bank Mellat case (see our post), the High Court upheld restrictions imposed Iranian bank alleged to have supported Iran’s nuclear program, which directed  anyone in the UK financial sector must not enter into or continue to participate in business with the bank.

In another recent case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that social security benefits cannot be withheld from family members of those suspected of being associated with the Al Qaeda terrorist network (see our post).

The Holder decision does not have any direct effect in the UK. However, it is likely that the UK Courts as well as the Government will be looking to the United States and its most eminent court for guidance as to how to handle similar issues if they arise here in the future. Given the number of recent UK decisions involving anti-terrorism law running foul of human rights, it seems likely that the courts may have  to examine similar issues soon enough. Freedom of expression enjoys stronger protection in the United States than it does here, so the signs may be ominous.

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: