## Theโ Feds’ Hazardous Expansionโ of Criminalizing Political โBeliefs:โ The case of Anarchist Literature
The recent case involving โthe possession of anarchist literature has ignited a debate about the limits of free speech and the potential for overreach byโ government โprosecutors. While authorities haven’t alleged any โคdirect link between the materials and criminal activity,the very act of possessing such publications is being scrutinized,raising concerns about a chilling effect on protected Firstโค Amendment rights.
The case centers around materials found in the possession of an individual, described as “Antifa materials” by prosecutors. However, these materials have โnot been identifiedโ as constituting a “true threat” of imminent violence – the legal standard required for speech to โbeโฃ punishable. Crucially, even in cases of true โฃthreats, โขresponsibility lies with the speaker, not those who simply possess their words. โ
Governmentโ prosecutors have not โclaimed the materials were used to โplan โany alleged actions,despite โขcharacterizing them as “anti-government” and “anti-Trump.” Even a specific zine, titled “Insurrectionary Anarchy: Organizing for Attack,” isโ described as a theoretical exploration ofโ tactics โคlike rent โขstrikes and squatting, rather than a direct instruction manual for violence. As one observer noted, “we don’t โคneed a constitutional right to publish (or possess) only what the government likes.”
Theโ notion of criminalizing the possession of literature is fundamentally at oddsโ with the principles of a โfree society. The First Amendment protects even unpopular or dissenting viewpoints, and the “anti-government” nature of the โzines in question falls squarely withinโค that protection. Concerns are also being raised โฃthat โthis case coudl set a dangerous precedent,possibly expanding the scope of censorship beyond โradical pamphlets,echoing the tactics ofโ authoritarian regimes like those led by Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbรกn.
This situation echoesโค a ancient irony. The framersโ of the Constitution, in crafting the First Amendment’s โpress freedom clause, likely envisioned publications far more akin to today’sโข zines than to mainstream media.Revolutionary-era America was rife with politically charged literature.โข Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” actively advocated for revolution against the British government, โand newspapers like the Boston Gazette published inflammatory writings โฃ by โfigures like Samuel Adams urging planning for warโค following the Coerciveโ Acts. The Declarationโ of Independence itself affirmed the rightโข of the people to revolt.As one commentator pointed out, this material could be describedโฃ asโค “literal insurrectionistโฃ propaganda.” The framers understoodโค the necessity of allowing dissenting voices, even those advocating radical change, to be heard. โขTheyโค believed โขthat if the government’s actions were just, radicalโ ideas wouldโ not โฃgain traction. The current case suggests a reluctance to trust that principle, raising concerns about a government unwilling to allow its ideas to be โคfreelyโ challenged.