The Wide Net of ‘Material Support’

The war on terrorism becomes a war on free speech.

The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Irish Republican Army, two of history’s most notorious terrorist groups, have never appeared on the State Department’s List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. By the time the list was first compiled in 1997, both groups were deemed to be moving away from violence and toward a peaceful resolution of their grievances.

Ralph Fertig, president of the Humanitarian Law Project, wants to encourage a similar change within the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a violent separatist group in Turkey. But he worries that doing so will expose him to prosecution for providing “material support” to a terrorist organization, a crime Congress has defined so broadly that it includes a great deal of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, which heard Fertig’s case in February, now has a chance to correct that error.

Fertig seeks, as the district court described it, to “provide training in the use of humanitarian and international law for the peaceful resolution of disputes, engage in political advocacy on behalf of the Kurds living in Turkey, and teach the PKK how to petition for relief before representative bodies like the United Nations.” Fertig says he also wants to “advocate on behalf of the rights of the Kurdish people and the PKK before the United Nations and the United States Congress.”

Another plaintiff in the case, an American physician named Nagalingam Jeyalingam, wants to do similar work with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a violent separatist group in Sri Lanka that, like the PKK, appears on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. In the words of the district court, Jeyalingam seeks to “provide training in the presentation of claims to mediators and international bodies for tsunami-related aid, offer legal expertise in negotiating peace agreements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, and engage in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils living in Sri Lanka.”

Whether you think Fertig and Jeyalingam are humanitarian heroes, naive dreamers, or inadvertent flacks for terrorists, the projects they have in mind clearly amount to “pure speech promoting lawful, nonviolent activities,” as their attorneys say. Yet the federal law they are challenging seems to make such speech a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Under the law, it is a crime to provide an organization on the State Department’s list with “training,” defined as “instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill”; “expert advice or assistance,” defined as “advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge”; “personnel,” which means any person, including oneself, who works under the organization’s “direction or control”; or “service,” which is not defined at all. These terms could easily be construed to cover the activities proposed by Fertig and Jeyalingam, even though they would be trying to discourage terrorism and promote peaceful alternatives.

During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled that several aspects of the “material support” ban are unconstitutional, the government’s lawyer said you could go to prison for filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a listed group, for pressing its case at the U.N., or even for asking Congress to take the group off the list. “Congress wants these organizations to be radioactive,” he explained.

By that logic, The New York Times and The Washington Post committed felonies when they published op-ed pieces by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef, an act “for the benefit of” a terrorist group and therefore, according to the government, a prohibited “service.” A speech defending the rights of Kurds or Tamils could be viewed the same way. By definitively rejecting such unconstitutional applications of the law, the Supreme Court can stop the war on terrorism from becoming a war on freedom of speech. 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum ( is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RM||

    The way the SCOTUS has been voting in the last few years, I have hope that this will get struck down.

  • ||

    You would think so, if allowing a corporation to legally bribe an elected official is free speech then certainly this stuff would be as well.

  • ||

    (citation needed)

  • ||

    Campaigning for or against a politician, speaking out for or against an issue equals bribery?

    Who knew?

  • ||

    I see that the Court granted cert in EMA v. Schwarzenegger, the video game regulation case. The lower court reached the correct decision, but lots of states keep trying bans that get struck down. It'll be interesting to see the ruling.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    The problem is not that it is legal for a corporation to bribe an elected official. The problem is that the elected officials have so much legal sway and power to grant favors that the corporation who does not have a big lobbying or campaign donation(bribery) budget gets put out of business by the ones that do.

  • ||

    As my children and I continue to teach their kids to shoot, read, and understand the Constitution & Bill of Rights are we 1)promoting terrorism or 2) inciting treason?
    In the USSA, it is one or the other.

  • christian louboutin platform p||

  • christian louboutin platform p||

    href="">Replica Christian Louboutin

  • first nike||

    The economic literature tells a different story. The rationale behind a tax on soft drinks, or any sin tax, is that when the government raises prices on a certain good, it will become so expensive that consumers will give it up. Having been forced to eschew that sin because of the high monetary price, consumers will reap the moral and/or physical benefits of not indulging, thereby bettering themselves and society.

  • amazon ghd||

    I love your website!z

  • nfl jerseys||


  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    bulk. And so, for girls entering captivated a pair of Women Uggs contemporary sale, which can be both analytical apprentice how to access them really bright and then will not be as accurate Ugg Sheepskin Boots-mind. better achieve adequate are some achievements

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    apery my year aft small baby. Unfortunately, the Uggs Australia Outletboots of power has enabled several months alone. I'm offended by it. I know I can access the transaction Maken counterfeit. So to access the 18-carat admiration Ugg Boots On Sale used to my

  • Sheepskin Boots Sale||

    Access we have to admire you. There are plenty of bargaining central Sheepskin Ugg Boots our web store said. All of them are able to style real and alarming. achieved agreement on Ugg Boots Online Store to feel the richness and warm. You surely do not condition of

  • ليبيه||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    This website is for travel to Malaysia

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • sd||



Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties