bolstering

The same supreme court that held steadfastly to the principle of free speech when deciding in Citizens United that limitations on corporate political publications or advertisements were unconstitutional due to their chilling effect on speech, has now decided that offering advice on peaceful conflict resolution and nonviolence to designated terrorist groups is a jailable offence under the material support clause of the PATRIOT act. The big question in my mind upon this development is whether open letters to terrorist groups would run afoul of the law?

A funny aspect of this story is how few articles about the decision in the media actually mention or identify that the statute in question is part of the PATRIOT act. Not even the liberal NY Times made mention of it.

Roberts is quoted as saying such support "— even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization." I have yet to determine if it would also embolden them too.