Only barely related, but another stupid law and a stupid court case from recent history is another good example of the US attacking the ability of legal counsel to do important work that this reminds me of, Holder v Humanitarian Law project (discussed by 5 4) (archived)
This case was brought by the law project to preemptively challenge a law that would make it illegal to provide material support or resources to groups that the US Government classifies as terrorist organizations. Sounds reasonable enough, but look a little closer and…
[video playback]
0:00:39.7 Speaker 1: They’ve written the law so broadly that it criminalizes pure speech, the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.
0:00:40.6 Leon: The result of the law is that lawyers cannot provide representation to organizations on the government’s terrorism list, even when the lawyer’s work is meant to push the groups towards more peaceful and legal solutions.
Only barely related, but another stupid law and a stupid court case from recent history is another good example of the US attacking the ability of legal counsel to do important work that this reminds me of, Holder v Humanitarian Law project (discussed by 5 4) (archived)