In September, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case of a Boston man convicted of seventeen and a half years in federal prison for multiple counts of terrorism. Defense lawyers are claiming that the First Amendment protects expressing beliefs, even unpopular ones, and the man was unfairly prosecuted.

Boston Man Translates al-Qaida Material

The Boston man began translating for the website At Tibyan in 2005. Much of the work was translating books and videos into English from Arabic. The material encouraged joining the terrorist group al-Qaida and killing American soldiers in the Middle East.

The man was not translating these works as a member of a terrorist organization, nor was he being encouraged by al-Qaida to do so. He did the work as a sympathizer with the cause.

The Boston man was undoubtedly a terrorist sympathizer. He flew to the Middle East multiple times to engage in activities like joining a terrorist training camp and killing Americans stationed in Iraq but failed to accomplish those goals. Further, al-Qaida had contacted the man for help translating texts but the man never opened the email from the organization.

First Amendment Protects Unpopular Beliefs

The First Amendment of the United States allows for citizens to translate, praise, and publish any ideological text. This was upheld in the 1919 case Abrams v. The United States, when a court ruled that anti-government speech cannot be oppressed unless the safety of the country is imminently threatened.

What it does not allow is for speech to become criminal activity. If the Boston man had translated under a request from a terrorist organization, it can be considered criminal action. If the translations are done due to a particular belief system, the First Amendment could be upheld.

As some terrorist organizations have risen up in the United States, laws have been passed that allow the ideas and speech of some organizations to be quieted. After September 11, the Supreme Court ruled that any material support or resources knowingly made to a terrorist organization was illegal if the person that provided the support coordinated with terrorists. This means that the law allows a person to materially support a terrorist organization until that person begins providing advice on how to carry out terrorist goals.

With the prior activities of the Boston man in mind, the court had previously determined that in combination with the translations of the texts he was coordinating with terrorists as per the post-9/11 law. However, he was never in communication with terrorists about terrorism.

The man seeks to claim that the laws on First Amendment rights regarding terrorist organizations are vague and there was no way of knowing that he was doing was wrong. Further, the way that the laws apply on the Internet is complicated since access to texts and ideas are more prevalent than ever before.

The internet creates new challenges to upholding First Amendment protections. The way that the court rules on this man's claims could create a precedent for online information exchange that could have far-reaching consequences for free speech in the digital age.