|
|
|
Attorney David Corn weighs in on the Tarek Mehanna case for the New York Review of Bo0ks blog. Corn, who argued Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, explains that the case against Mehanna rests on that flawed Supreme Court ruling, resulting in a 17-year sentence for an American citizen for translating an essay that was already widely available:
Why should those of us who have no interest in reading “39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad” care? For the same reason that we should care about the prosecution of a Klansman or an anarchist for their speech. History shows that free speech is fundamental to a robust democracy, and that if the government can punish expression because of its political content, it will use that power to go after its enemies. Today’s enemy may be anyone who shows sympathy with jihadism, but who knows who tomorrow’s enemy will be.
I’ve received far more praise than criticism for my Sunday column on Mehanna’s case, but even some who are generally sympathetic to my politics have questioned my coming to the defense of someone routinely described as a Jihadist sympathizer. I think that comes from an ignorance of the facts in this case, along with a lack of national media attention. There would be a lot more interest, I think, if national media leaders saw this as a significant legal test of restrictions on First Amendment rights enacted in response to 9/11.
