The small modification to the USA Patriot Act won’t change the controversial sections that have drawn criticism from civil libertarians who call the bill a violation of the First Amendment.

A federal judge struck down a provision of the Patriot Act Jan. 23 and made the ruling available Jan. 26, saying it was unconstitutional because of vague language.

“The change certainly isn’t going to have any impact [at universities] on all the students who are getting their mail read,” said Barbara Mack, associate professor of journalism and communication.

The sections of the Patriot Act that have drawn criticism — such as the right of the government to demand business records from libraries and hospitals and access to credit history — won’t be affected by the provision.

Instead, the provision protects humanitarian workers. The court said a paragraph prohibiting providing “expert advice or assistance” to designated international terrorist organizations is a violation of the First and Fifth amendments because it is impermissibly vague.

The Humanitarian Law project filed a lawsuit on behalf of workers attempting to provide assistance to Kurdish refugees living in eastern Turkey.

The refugees belong to the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), which was listed as a terrorist organization in 1997 by then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright.

The humanitarian workers, if convicted for helping the Kurdish refugees, could face jail sentences of 15 years. The restriction of the Patriot Act aims to protect the First and Fifth Amendment, which protect free speech and due process before criminalizing someone.

Through the provision will remove some vague language from the Patriot Act, Mack said the net effect is still incredibly small.

“The restriction only changes four words of the Patriot Act,” she said. “‘Expert advice or assistance’ are the only words changed. It’s a very limited ruling that doesn’t address main criticisms of the Patriot Act.”

Caleb Christensen, member of ACLU at Iowa State and senior in physics, said there are worse parts of the Patriot Act that need addressing.

“Under the Patriot Act, if you’re a noncitizen the government can detain you without a trial for an indefinite period,” he said. “It also changes the definition of ‘terrorist’ into something so broad that many legal protesters can be defined as terrorists by the state, allowing the government to do anything they want to them.”

Though the provision was small, Christensen said it was a baby step toward preventing possible future harm under the umbrella of the act.

“[The provision] is a good start,” he said. “Vague language is a big problem with the Patriot Act, so fixing it is an important step in the right direction.”

— The Associated Press contributed to this article.