Abstract: This Note examines the recent conviction of U.S. citizen Tarek Mehanna for providing material support for terrorism. Mehanna was convicted of providing material support for terrorism not because he posed an immediate threat, but rather because he translated al Qaeda propaganda into English. This Note argues that the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project provides inadequate guidance for when speech made in support of terror is punishable, and that the Court’s deference to the political branches will have a deleterious impact on free speech rights. This Note further argues that speech like Mehanna’s should be evaluated using an incitement standard developed specifically for material support cases. This proposed standard will allow courts to strike a proper balance between free speech rights and national security.
BCLR Moves to # 25 in Law Journal Rankings
The Boston College Law Review has moved from #26 to #25 in the annual Washington and Lee University School of Law Law […]
Alumni-Student Happy Hour, February 19
Dear BCLR Alumni, I am pleased to announce that the Boston College Law Review will be hosting its Alumni-Student Happy […]
2014 E. Supp. Now Available
We have begun posting case comments from recent federal appellate decisions to our 2014 E. Supp., which can be found […]