Home
> Commentary > Terrorist Propaganda or Political Speech?
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (1)
Leave a comment
Trackback
-
September 11, 2009 at 11:38 amcearta.ie » New kids on the block
Archives
Categories
- Blog Housekeeping
- Call for Papers
- Children and the Law
- Commentary
- Conferences and Events
- Constitution of Ireland
- Criminal Justice
- Families and the Law
- Gender, Sexuality and the Law
- Guest Contributions
- Human Rights and the Economy
- Human Rights in the News
- Immigration and Asylum
- International Law/International Human Rights
- Job Opportunities and Internships
- Law, Culture and Religion
- Legislation and Law Reform
- Mental Health Law and Disability Law
- New Judgments and Cases to Watch
- Our Blog Events
- Penal Policy
- Policing
- Privacy
- Publications and Reports
- Race
- Terrorism
- Transitional Justice
- UK General Election 2010
Blogroll
- Children's Rights Alliance
- European Committee of Social Rights
- European Court of Human Rights
- Human Rights in Ireland
- Inforrm's Blog
- Ireland After Nama
- Irish Human Rights Commission
- Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
- OAS Human Rights
- OAU Human Rights
- OHCHR
- Ombudsman for Children
- Politico
- The Equality Authority
- UK Human Rights Blog
- UK Supreme Court Blog
- United Nations Children's Fund
HR Law Journals
- African Human Rights Law Journal
- American Journal of International Law
- European Human Rights Law Review
- European Journal of International Law
- Harvard Human Rights Journal
- Human Rights Law Review
- Human Rights Review
- Irish Yearbook of International Law
- Journal of Social Criminology
- Leiden Journal of International Law
- Translocations
- Unbound – Harvard Journal of the Legal Left
- Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal
International Human Rights Law Blogs
International Organisations
Irish Law
Irish Law Blogs
Irish NGOs
- Amnesty NI Blog
- Children's Rights Alliance
- Dublin Rape Crisis Centre
- Forum on Migration and Communication
- Free Legal Advice Centres
- Hanna's House
- Immigrant Council of Ireland
- Immigrant Council of Ireland Blog
- IPRT Director's Blog
- Irish Council for Civil Liberties
- Irish Penal Reform Trust
- Irish Refugee Council
- Irish Traveller Movement
- Migrant Rights Centre Ireland
- NASC
- Pavee Point Media Monitor
- Rape Crisis Network Ireland
- Safe and Legal
- The Researcher
Terrorist Propaganda or Political Speech?
In Ireland we are quite accustomed to our freedom of expression being significantly limited where that freedom is abused. This results from the express limitations in both Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Irish Constitution) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. International law also prohibits propaganda to war as our colleague Michael Kearney has explained and examined in detail in his book The Prohibition of Propaganda for War in International Law (2007, OUP). In the United States, however, the constitutional protection of free speech (First Amendment), while not absolute, is certainly broader than is the case in Ireland or indeed under the ECHR. This makes the appeal argument by counsel for Al Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul—the only person currently in Guantánamo Bay to have been convicted of an offence relating to the ‘War on Terrorism’—all the more interesting. Details of the appeal after the jump.
Counsel for al Bahlul (it is unclear to what extent the appellant is actively participating in the appeal given that he boycotted much of the original proceedings) is arguing that the propaganda videos al Bahlul is alleged to have released as personal assistant the media secretary to Osama bin Laden are in fact constitutionally protected political speech and, as a result, can not be criminalised. The full argument is set out in the Appeal Brief. As the brief documents, the US Government conceded that the video at issue presented a political argument, which the appellant is interpreting as meaning that the speech involved was political speech.
The argument is interesting although, on the face of it, not that likely to succeed as a superior government interest can override the first amendment rights (United States v O’Brien-holding that criminalisation of the burning of draft cards was constitutionally permissible) and words that create an immediate risk to national security do not enjoy constitutional protection. In addition, whether the presentation of a political argument necessarily means that the means of its presentation counts as political speech raises interesting question-does the nature of the content dictate the nature of the speech?
Of most interest to people who are interested in the interactions between law and counter-terrorism, however, may well be how the US courts deal with interesting questions that are likely to arise on how political speech and propaganda can be distinguished from one another. This is especially so as this may well mirror the well-trodden ‘terrorist’ v ‘liberation fighter’ v ‘political activist’ etc… terrain that national security lawyers are very well acquainted with!
Cross posted at IntLawGrrls
Rate this:
Share this:
Like this:
Related