factbat.com

The United States Supreme Court has ruled, 6 to 3, to uphold a law which was argued against for its possible freedom of speech violations.

The law, vaguely enunciated here, prohibits any kind of support for known or alleged terror organizations, even if that support would be intended to aid the organization in moving toward a more peaceful mode of operation.

The law prohibits cash contributions, legal assistance, certain forms of mediation, education, employment assistance, among other things.

While one would initially think that prohibiting acts of support, either monetarily or educationally, which could cultivate more convivial engagements by terrorist organizations, to be near-sighted and inept; one must consider the fact that any organization that has been conclusively proven to have engaged in overt violent acts of indiscriminate terrorism, and thereby have injured innocent people for the express intent of forcing their idea of change, then it would be a difficult organization to ever trust to be explicitly sober or law abiding in the future.

Especially should that organization ever find itself in an inhospitable situation of which it felt there was again no other option.

On that note, one must also begin to question the motivation of any organization that intends to use violence as a means of effecting change…of any kind.

If the Supreme Court is intent on ruling against freedom of speech as a means of preventing one from interpreting their support for indiscriminate violence, then one must then begin to expressly interpret just what is “indiscriminate violence.”

As the analysis invariably moves into the realms of unsanctioned acts of aggression, then it is imperative to open the box most politicians, oligarchs and plutocrats hate to tangle with.

Discrimination. Primarily due to the fact that this crucial form of accountability can irreparably calcify ones reputation…as it should.

Which is one reason why this discussion is historically left to the Court in America.

Fortuitously, the Court has ruled in favor of logic in this recent debate, and as time progresses, and the edifice of intellectual dichotomies pervade the permeable layers of social interaction, this ruling will come to haunt those who are expecting it to serve a solitary purpose.

The Obama administration now lauds the efforts of the Supreme Court as a sign that the power of the government is further sanctioned by the Court, at the expense of Constitutional edicts.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This preamble to the now evolving mechanism of what is soon to prove an auspicious human predilection will be expounded upon as events warrant.