Ah, yes. The age old "You're infringing on my rights to talk to terrorists" defense.
And, what infringement is there, really? There's no censorship issues here. How is the speech being infringed upon? If you're talking to someone you suspect to be a terrorist, maybe you should call the FBI first, for that matter? Communicating with a foreign based enemy during time of war shouldn't be something that you do behind your own country's back, and expect it to be protected.
Warrantless electronic surveillance on US citizens violates the 4th Amendment. Further, such surveillance is specifically forbidden by FISA (50 USC 1801 et seq). Then you toss in the chilling effect it has on lawyers talking to their clients - they can't talk on the phone because the government might be (illegally) listening in. Ding, 1st Amendment.
The US is a government of laws, not men. They should either get Congress (who writes the laws) to get its ass in gear and DO SOMETHING, or they should comply with FISA, or they should stop breaking the damn law. Right now, any prosecution that tried to use any phone taps to get warrants or in a criminal case is looking at real problems because the source of the data is illegally obtained information.
--R.
Ah yes, the age old "misstate the argument" counter. If Ms. Taylor's diatribe is so weak in foundation why stoop to this?
It isn't a First Amendment issue at all. The NSA program prevents no one from expressing themselves. If anything, it is a Fourth Amendment issue and also the President's inherent constitutional powers as commander in chief. Every court until this one has said that the President has inherent constitutional power to use warrantless foreign surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.