[Poohbah]

Freedom of speech permits supporting terrorism, as long as you are only providing "expert advice and assistance" to groups the federal government has designated as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Of course, with a Clinton-appointed judge, you REALLY have to parse "expert advice and assistance" carefully.

After all, if someone were to give such an organization detailed information on SCADA access protocols for a chemical processing plant, along with weather information for a major city, they could argue that said information was merely "expert assistance and advice."

Even if the terrorists proceeded to use said information to generate a city-killing toxic release...

[Wilhelm Tell]

According to our wonderful liberal judges, teaching terrorists how to make bombs or poison is "protected speech" but a political issue ad about a politician's voting record is not protected by the First Amendment. Maybe there should be a literacy test for judges.

[NormsRevenge]

One can only hope that Judge Collins will be overruled, if not by her colleagues on the Ninth Circuit (yes, miracles do happen), then by the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens, we can draw valuable observations from these developments. The War on Terror has numerous fronts, many of them, unfortunately, within America itself, where sympathetic lawyers, “human rights” militants and inane judges can be the most dedicated enemies to national security.

The Enemies Within

[irv]

Freedom of speech permits supporting terrorism, as long as you are only providing "expert advice and assistance"

Here's the tack the government should take on the appeal: "According to this ruling, it's wrong to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, but it's perfectly okay to tell someone that if they do that, the resulting panic will increase casualties when the bomb goes off. Riiiiiiight!"

This country would be MUCH better off if just a few imbeciles like this were impeached.