A  portion of a controversial anti-terrorism law enacted last year has  been struck down as a violation of the 1st Amendment by a federal judge.  The law in question is the National Defense Authorization Act.

Journalists  brought the suit noting that they could be subject to indefinite  detention without benefit of constitutional protections because of  dealing with contacts in Europe and elsewhere in the world which could  trigger the law. The journalists pointed out that an individual could be  arrested and detained without even knowing that the person on the other  end of correspondence was involved or under watch for terrorist  activity.

A  judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government  wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of  suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and  political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for  exercising First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine  Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the  law has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights." She cited  testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain  individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision  of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who "substantially"  or "directly" provides "support" to forces such as al-Qaida or the  Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to  change it.

"An individual could run the risk of substantially  supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being  aware that he or she was doing so," the judge said.

She said the  law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who  engage in political speech with views that "may be extreme and unpopular  as measured against views of an average individual.

"That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects," Forrest wrote.

She  called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable,  citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist  Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed  with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and  reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department  of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him  to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban  might be present.

He said: "Ever since the law has come out, and  because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you're not sure what you  can say, what you can do and what context you can have."

Hedges  was among seven individuals and one organization that challenged the law  with a January lawsuit. The National Defense Authorization Act was  signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of  U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Wednesday's ruling does not affect  another part of the law that enables the United States to indefinitely  detain members of terrorist organizations, and the judge said the  government has other legal authority it can use to detain those who  support terrorists.

Attorney Carl Mayer, speaking for plaintiffs  at oral arguments earlier this year, had noted that even President  Barack Obama expressed reservations about certain aspects of the bill  when he signed it into law.

After the ruling, Mayer called on the  Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law. He also  called on Congress to change it "to make it the law of the land that  U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to  military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a  revolution to make sure would never happen in this land."

The  government had argued that the law did not change the practices of the  United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and that the  plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-terror-law-violates-1st-amendment-233222966.html

The  portion struck down has been a bone of contention and scathing rebukes  and comments by those on both the right and the left. No one was happy  with the provision. Many saw this as government over reach.

From  the Cornfield, will this land in the Supreme Court or will the  Administration of President Barack Obama back off his support of the  full provisions of the law?