## The Feds’ Hazardous Expansion of Criminalizing Political Beliefs: The case of Anarchist Literature
The recent case involving the possession of anarchist literature has ignited a debate about the limits of free speech and the potential for overreach by government prosecutors. While authorities haven’t alleged any direct 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 First Amendment rights.
The case centers around materials found in the possession of an individual, described as “Antifa materials” by prosecutors. However, these materials have not been identified as constituting a “true threat” of imminent violence – the legal standard required for speech to be punishable. Crucially, even in cases of true threats, responsibility lies with the speaker, not those who simply possess their words.
Government prosecutors have not claimed the materials were used to plan any alleged actions,despite characterizing them as “anti-government” and “anti-Trump.” Even a specific zine, titled “Insurrectionary Anarchy: Organizing for Attack,” is described as a theoretical exploration of tactics like rent strikes and squatting, rather than a direct instruction manual for violence. As one observer noted, “we don’t need a constitutional right to publish (or possess) only what the government likes.”
The notion of criminalizing the possession of literature is fundamentally at odds with the principles of a free society. The First Amendment protects even unpopular or dissenting viewpoints, and the “anti-government” nature of the zines in question falls squarely within that protection. Concerns are also being raised that this case coudl set a dangerous precedent,possibly expanding the scope of censorship beyond radical pamphlets,echoing the tactics of authoritarian regimes like those led by Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán.
This situation echoes a ancient irony. The framers of the Constitution, in crafting the First Amendment’s press freedom clause, likely envisioned publications far more akin to today’s zines than to mainstream media.Revolutionary-era America was rife with politically charged literature. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” actively advocated for revolution against the British government, and newspapers like the Boston Gazette published inflammatory writings by figures like Samuel Adams urging planning for war following the Coercive Acts. The Declaration of Independence itself affirmed the right of the people to revolt.As one commentator pointed out, this material could be described as “literal insurrectionist propaganda.” The framers understood the necessity of allowing dissenting voices, even those advocating radical change, to be heard. They believed that if the government’s actions were just, radical ideas would not gain traction. The current case suggests a reluctance to trust that principle, raising concerns about a government unwilling to allow its ideas to be freely challenged.
