The decision is actually more controversial than that headline implies, since the law the decision upheld prohibits material support to designated terrorist groups even for peaceful activities.
The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
"Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Roberts said...
The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terrorist groups.
Justice Breyer, who dissented, said the possibility of terrorist violence is not sufficient to negate one's First Amendment rights. Do you agree, or is Roberts correct that material support for non-violent activities is indirect support for violent ones?
