 |
| Pix Credit here |
While students and others sharing their views and methods have been gathering on university campuses to perform their viewpoints and advocate for an embrace of their way of seeing things, doing things, and resolving things relating to the situation (broadly understood) in the MENA but focused, for the moment on the Israeli response in Gaza to the Hamas attacks of 7 October, it appears that other students and those sharing their views have taken to the courts to seek the prevention, mitigation, and remediation of adverse impact on their own rights against representatives of those performing what they view as the full extent of the rights under the 1st Amendment to the US constitution on shared space.
On 1 May 2024, a lawsuit in the federal courts of Virginia: Maya Parizer et al. v. AJP Educational Foundation, Inc. a/k/a American Muslims for Palestine and National Students for Justice in Palestine Case 1:24-cv-00724 US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Filed 05/01/24) (access here also). The case represents the first, though no doubt not the last, effort to transpose the action on the grounds of the university into the courts. It does so not by seeking remedy for the speech acts of the students and their allies, but rather by linking the organizations connected with those efforts to the multinational operational chains that support or act for or are complicit with the rights impacting actions of Hamas. |
| Pix credit here |
The gravamen of the suit is quite interesting. It argues a form of complicity on the part of the named defendant organizations. That this that they are complicit in the continuing gross human rights violations of those whose interests they serve under cover of the protection of the constitutional orders of host states. "There is a legal chasm between independent advocacy and knowingly serving as the propaganda and recruiting wing of a Foreign Terrorist Organization in the United States. AMP and NSJP are the latter. They are not innocent advocacy groups, but rather the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization operating in plain sight." (Complainant, p. 3). The Complaint, and the claims it advances, are ones with potential substantial ramifications for
the development of the law of complicity, facilitation, and aiding and
abetting--concepts already being broadened in the context of business
and human rights in Europe (on facilitation and complicity here and here; and at its edges here)--as well as for the interpretation and
application of the US Anti-Terrorism Act and more generally sanctions based regimes (eg here, here, and here). And at the fringes and in the
shadows, a potentially necessary discussion of the borderlands between
speech acts and acts of complicity and facilitation. There is no reason to think that like any other object, speech itself can also serve as an instrument of terror under the Act, or as the means of producing substantial adverse human rights impacts in specific contexts. Likewise complicity based relationships may be generated around speech acts that either facilitate the work of Terrorist organizations (as officially listed by a State) and within its domestic legal order or adverse human rights impacts. This becomes more important as the idea of narrative as a tool for destabilizing a society or corrupting a discourse becomes a common theme of war (see, e.g. here, here, and here). It is against these changing conditions that traditional principles about the US 1st Amendment may have to be dynamically interpreted to be suitable to the historical era in which it must be applied. That, certainly, will likely be the thrust of some arguments that may be put forward in this case. These are all important subjects that require some discussion
in these rapidly changing times in which many of the old assumptions
about the way things worked and their inter-relationships may be subject
to some stress.
The plaintiffs are those who suffered injury, or whose close relatives were murdered, on or about 7 October 2023 at the Nova Music Festival and in places near there (Complaint ¶¶ 1-9). The defendants are described this way:
10. Defendant AJP Educational Foundation, Inc. a/k/a American Muslims for Palestine
Pix credit here
(“AMP”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation incorporated in California with its principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia. In a separate action, AMP is accused of being the successor entity to two organizations currently dodging a judgment exceeding $150 million under the Antiterrorism Act for providing material support to Hamas.1
11. Defendant National Students for Justice in Palestine (“NSJP”) is an unincorporated
association without a formal principal place of business or publicly identified leadership structure. NSJP was founded by AMP to provide it on-campus management and control of hundreds of university chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (“SJP”). AMP controls NSJP and uses it to operate a propaganda machine for Hamas and its affiliates across American college campuses.
The factual allegations provide a chronology of the genesis of the defendants from and connected with the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestine Committee alleged to serve as a funding source for Hamas and to advance their joint political religious and ethnic objectives in the regions (Complaint ¶¶ 19-41). The contours of that strategy was then described as a terror by propaganda strategy (Complaint ¶¶ 47-73) along with a description of what was alleged to be material aid to Hamas beyond mere strong sympathy for the views and aims of Hamas (Complaint ¶¶ 74-108).1. See First Amended Complaint, Boim v. Am. Muslims for Palestine, No. 1:17-CV-3591 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2019), ECF 179 [henceforth, “Boim FAC”]. That matter is ongoing. See also Boim v. Am. Muslims for Palestine, 9 F.4th 545 (7th Cir. 2021). (Complaint ¶¶ 10-11).
All of this was proffered in aid of the Complaint's principal objective--
116. This case is not about independent political advocacy. It is about organizations whose very creation was intended to provide continuous, systematic, and substantial assistance to a Foreign Terrorist Organization and its allies.
Pix credit here
117. The law distinguishes between those who engage in independent advocacy and those who are providing a service to FTOs. Defendants do not just assist Hamas but see themselves as part of the movement Hamas controls—the same movement that attacked Plaintiffs and continues to attack them to this day. There is no doubt that Defendants fall into the latter category.
118. The assistance Defendants provide to Hamas through their propaganda is material,
critical, systematic, and of significant monetary value. In fact, Defendants’ substantial assistance is invaluable. Hamas is unable by law to retain public relations services in the United States, but if it could, these services would be prohibitively expensive. For comparison, the state of Qatar spent $200 million on one lobbying campaign alone in 2017,122 including millions to various public relations firms.123
119. It is not just Defendants’ propaganda that provides substantial assistance to Hamas;
they are similarly responsible for providing Hamas with substantial assistance through their
control, management, and instigation of various acts of domestic terrorism, including violent acts for the express benefit of Hamas and its allies. (Complaint, ¶¶ 116-119).
The complaint is grounded on the Anti Terrorism Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 2331 et seq. Section 2333(a) provides that
Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees. (8 USC §2333(a)).
 |
| Pix credit here |
Section 2333(d)(2) provides that liability may be asserted against any person (as defined in the Statute) that aids and abets ("liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism." Relying in its reading of Twitter v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), the Complaint asserts that "defendant may be liable under the Antiterrorism Act even without a “strict nexus” between the substantial assistance and the act of international terrorism so long as there is “a foreseeable risk” of such act. Indeed, in some cases, “defendant’s role in an illicit enterprise can be so systemic that the secondary defendant is aiding and abetting every wrongful act committed by that enterprise.” (Complaint ¶ 123, quoting in part Twitter v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 495-9). From there, the Plaintiffs summarize their complaint:
By aiding and abetting Hamas in committing, planning, or authorizing acts of international terrorism, including the acts that caused each of the U.S. Plaintiffs to be injured in his or her person and property, Defendants are liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d) for, threefold any and all, damages that U.S. Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of such injuries, and the costs of this suit, including attorney's fees. (Complaint, ¶ 134).
The Complaint may be accessed HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment