Court tosses convictions of Virginia scholar who backed terrorists
A federal appeals court (the 4th circuit) unanimously overturned the convictions of Virginia scholar Ali Al‑Timimi, who had been found guilty in 2005 of urging Muslims at private meetings to support the Taliban and fight after the 9/11 attacks. The court ruled his 2001 statements were protected by the First Amendment and did not meet the legal standard for incitement established in brandenburg v. Ohio, which requires advocacy of imminent lawless action.
Judge James A.Wynn wrote that, although Al‑Timimi’s remarks were “disturbing and deeply offensive,” they were “vague and general,” urged no concrete criminal plan, and provided no operational assistance-so they fell short of criminal incitement. Defense lawyers hailed the decision as a reaffirmation that unpopular or offensive ideas alone cannot be criminalized.
The ruling nullifies a portion of Al‑Timimi’s remaining convictions (three had already been voided in 2024), resolving appeals that otherwise could have left him facing decades in prison beyond the roughly 15 years he has already served.
Court throws out convictions of Muslim man who encouraged others to join terrorist group
A federal appeals court on Friday acquitted a Virginia scholar criminally convicted of urging Muslims to fight with terrorist forces overseas after the 9/11 attacks waged by radical Islamist terrorists.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Ali Al-Timimi’s 2001 statements were protected under the First Amendment and did not reach the criminal level of inciting lawless actions. The decision tosses a 2005 verdict from a jury that found Al-Timimi guilty of soliciting treason and urging a group of Muslims during private meetings to aid the Taliban in Afghanistan and fight following the attacks on the World Trade Center towers.
“Plenty of speech encouraging criminal activity is protected under the First Amendment,” Judge James A. Wynn wrote in an opinion for the three-judge panel that cited the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling. “The First Amendment’s protection does not depend on the popularity or palatability of the message conveyed. On the contrary, it is most vital when speech offends, disturbs, or challenges prevailing sensibilities.”
Al-Timimi’s legal team celebrated the decision, saying it reaffirmed “the government cannot criminalize speech simply because the ideas expressed are unpopular, offensive, or challenge those in power.”
“When courts refuse to allow convictions based merely on the expression of ideas — no matter how alarming those ideas may be to some — they vindicate the First Amendment’s core promise and demonstrate the strength of our system of government,” Federal Defender Geremy Kamens said.
DOJ SUES DC GOVERNMENT OVER AR-15 BAN
Wynn said that Al-Timimi’s “vague and general” statements to a group during a 2001 meeting at his home, exhorting attendees to support terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “fell short of advocating the imminent lawlessness contemplated by Brandenburg.” The statements were “disturbing and deeply offensive,” the judge wrote, but “urged no concrete criminal plan and did not provide operational assistance for the commission of any particular offense.”
Another court voided three of Al-Timimi’s convictions in 2024. But seven others had remained on appeal, leaving him with decades of prison time beyond the 15 years the Virginia lecturer had already served.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
