John Smith is expressing himself and supporting a figure that is known as an enemy to the United States: this is covered under the first amendment right for freedom of expression, religion, and speech. Mr. Smith is also protected by the Free Exercise Clause which “provides absolute protection for the right to express one’s religious beliefs and to assemble with other believers. It also protects people’s right to solicit funds and proselytize on behalf of religious organizations.” Likewise, John did not make any threats to the U.S Government by expressing his belief and support to Isis. He did not commit libel or slander; he did not use obscenity or fighting words. Additionally, Mr. Smith’s belief for Islamic Caliphate, meaning a rule of a Muslim ruling in the United States, is not indicating to overthrow the U.S government by violence. …show more content…
Smith, we are convicting every individual in the United States. We would be stripping them their natural born liberties given to them by the framers of the Constitution; a paper of laws that hold this countries foundations together. In conclusion, the Patriot Act would destroy every direction of defense for Mr. Smith. With charges being based on the Patriot Act of 2001, Mr. Smith would be charged with sedition for the following reasons, first for communicating and providing financial support to a known enemy of the united states, secondly for dressing publicly as a soldier that is an enemy of the united states ( which can be considered intimidating), and finally for speaking publicly about his desire to have a Islamic caliphate as a governing leader which directly relates to removing the current united states government. All of these acts can be proven with evidence gathered from phone records, financial records, computer record, searches, and information from other foreign countries. All of this evidence can be gathered without Mr. Smith’s consent or initial knowledge as covered by the Patriot