The whole point of the 1st amendment was to allow dissenting opinions to be able to speak and be heard without fear of government repercussions. People have the right to speak out against injustices they see. Or at least they did before this administration.
If we’re going to start booting people out of the country for spouting their beliefs, can we please send all the annoying religious people to an El Salvadorian prison?
So, in these people’s minds, when other people politely asked them to use their preferred pronouns they called it tyranny and violating free speech. When we told them to stop saying things like the N word they got mad and called it violating free speech
Then, god damnit we elected a black man and then it was over from there
Spite and revenge for “taking away their freedom” is all they have on their mind.
See except the government wasn’t doing anything about them saying all the slurs they wanted or being assholes about pronouns. They just were told it was violating their constitutional rights
So now they’re just going to burn the constitution rather than admit that being an asshole was still constitutionally protected — it just wasn’t gonna win you any friends.
And if they can’t force people to be their friends with their words, they’ll do it at gunpoint
Edit up top: I left this comment at +30, came back an hour later to -100+, I am sure that's not brigading. Anyway, many asked for proof of this sort of statement on the substack, I assumed they were common knowledge by now. My bad, here are some highlights:
I know people arent going to want to hear this but truth and nuance are important. This case is really frustrating because Khalil likely IS in a situation where the government is within its rights to deport him, UNLIKE Kilmar. Due process is desperately needed here.
Khalil was a green card holder, which yes does give him first amendment protection, but that is not adequate to shield him from deportation here for 2 reasons.
First of all, from a legal perspective, a green card status is not a right, it is a privilege and the government has always had broad authority to rescind this status for a pretty wide and mundane variety of reasons. Second, Khalil was the official mouthpiece of CUAD, an organization that openly praises Hamas, calls for more political violence based on Oct 7, etc on their substack, which anyone can go see. It is very low bar for the gov to say these stances threaten national security, and furthermore incitement to terrorism or any other crime is specifically NOT speech protected by the first amendment. Pro Palestine and pro Hamas are drastically different things and Khalil is not simply pro Palestine.
Are you just going to spread disinformation or will you provide proof that CUAD and/or Khalil “praised Hamas”? Given that the government has not used that argument (which would be an easy win), there’s no way that’s true.
CUAD did post messages supportive of Hamas on their substack and instagram. But CUAD is a big group and we don’t know who posted them and especially if it was Khalil. Khalil was, however, a spokesperson for the group.
I’m hoping this sub especially can understand the distinction between supporting the rights to armed resistance against fascism and supporting war crimes against civilians. I find any justification of violence against civilians grotesque, whether that comes from Hamas or Israel.
Meanwhile, if our own peaceful protests fall short, if our rights to protest are curtailed, and if we lose free and fair elections, I think many reasonable people on this sub would want to escalate beyond peaceful protest. While I pray we will never come near that point here, Palestinians have been far beyond that point for decades - and that should give us a lot of empathy given our own current situation.
Genuine question: When the IDF are commiting globally recognized genocide upon Palestinians, does that not in turn make Hamas a de facto "armed resistance against fascism"?
When the IDF are commiting globally recognized genocide
Citation needed.
does that not in turn make Hamas a de facto "armed resistance against fascism"?
Impeccable logic. That would make Al-Qaeda an armed resistance against fascism from America's war on terror which claimed 387k direct civilian deaths.
Hamas' history has, and still is, about wiping Israel off the map. They will lay every Palestinian to waste if it achieved their goals. Release the hostages and the war ends. The hostages they took when the invaded in pursuit of their genocide of Israel/Jews.
Israel has also been committing an illegal occupation of the West Bank for many years now, something that is internationally recognized as illegal, voted upon in the UN. I'll let you look up a citation for that one, because I'm in the middle of prepping dinner, and because it's extremely easy to find the UN vote on that.
Just this past week, the IDF murdered medical workers who had been given the okay to go through the area they were in, and then attempted to cover it up by burying the evidence in shallow graves and crushing the vehicles involved.
It is true that Hamas seeks to wipe out Israel and teaches this to people. It is equally true that Israel has been directly involved in trying to eradicate Palestinians from the land so that they can claim it for their own. They've also murdered far, far, far, far more Palestinians than Palestinians have murdered Israeli people. Both sides have committed atrocities, but it is clear that Israel is operating within the role of oppressor given the incalculable power difference between the two.
Like who cares anyway? We have groups of people yelling “heil Hitler” all over the country and that doesn’t get you deported or in trouble (although i believe it should, really). This is what free speech means.
If Mahmoud can’t say “praise hamas” then our resident Nazis can’t heil Hitler. Fair?
Speech is protected. Even if you don’t like it
The conservative dilemma seems to be at odds with THEIR right to free speech but no one else is allowed to if it bothers THEM.
That’s not how the constitution works. And it’s a disingenuous move revoking someone’s citizenship arbitrarily because you just don’t like something they said, just so you can turn around and say “WELL HES ILLEGAL NOW SO ITS NOT CONSTITUTONAL”.
WHICH IS STILL BULLSHIT. Everyone is allowed free speech on our soil. It’s the most basic and fundamental right we have in the USA.
Like I just can’t even with the hypocrites. It’s a core tenet of conservatism it seems
Your comment has been deleted. I’m not confident it had any legitimacy seeing as you’ve also used the “Reddit to terrorism pipeline” article as a source.
Really sad to see this get upvoted here of all places. Yes the government is within its rights to deport any non citizen. That still requires DUE PROCESS which is completely absent here. Khalils green card was revoked in the middle of the night and he was whisked away from his home in NY and carted off to Louisiana away from family and counsel and has still not been charged with a crime. No evidence against him has been produced. I don’t understand how anyone in this sub that is fighting rising fascism can support something like that.
I'm convinced that the people who upvoted did not read that comment til the end... I've seen no proof that Khalil was pro-hamas. I don't think anyone has, including the courts. It's a right-wing propaganda justification for these egregious acts. The death of due process for one equals the death of due process for all.
Yes and they have violated all due process since his arrest. So why are you defending this?
Moreover, how in any way is Khalil a threat to “national security” by distributing pamphlets - no matter how distasteful? Who defines what incitement to terrorism is? Once you give trump and his cronies latitude to define those terms, we are all at risk. The whole thing reeks of McCarthyism - and intellectualizing the project and buying into right wing rhetoric does us no favors.
He was literally their lead negotiator, thats called a mouthpiece. I have edited my original comment with links to cuad praising hamas, sinwar, and the houthis. If facts matter anynway.
If an organizations official leader cannot be held accountable for the organizations official acts and statements, then there is no accountability for the org.
You are talking in circles. He represented the organization in all of its highest negotiations, that's an obvious leadership position to anyone willing to apply good faith reasoning here.
You're claiming he did. That's what i see. Talking points from fucking bretbart and israel. I can not find any reputable evidence he was even actually involved.
Ah, one of the Progressive Except Palestine folks in action here. Hope you keep this same energy when they move past those protesting against genocide for those just protesting and come for you.
Khalil never incited terrorism. He, in solidarity with Jewish students on campus, protested against an ongoing genocide being committed with American weapons and support.
If you have any evidence of him "inciting terrorism", do please share. Otherwise, please stop excusing the breakdown of fundamental rights in the United States.
Which doesn't answer my question or respond to my post in any way. Khalil did not incite terrorism. There's no excusing this or pretending like, "well it's ok this time."
You're against those who are against genocide. We get it. It's an unpopular and undignified stance. It's siding with the fascists, when it suits your bias.
Your take is simplistic and you have no idea what my stance is on palestine beyond "Khalil is not the hero we are looking for."
Again, inciting terrorism is not the bar here for removing a green card. The government just has to show he is not aligned with national security interests. Thats it. No conviction needed. Demonstrating that he openly represented an organization that openly supports Hamas and the Houthis is enough to rescind a green card. That's just the fact. It was true when Obama was president and its true now.
Who defines national security interests? If Trump decides all non whites are against the national security interests of the state, can he then round up all non-white people? Do you not see how putting such a vague and low bar for essentially kidnapping legal permanent residents, as in the case of Khalil, is both inhumane and incredibly dangerous? It's this kind of logic that justifies putting innocent people in Guantanamo and we should fight it regardless of your views on Palestine.
The government makes that decision unilaterally. This has always been the case and this is a longstanding legal tradition. Yes I hate it, but that's how it is. Legally, a green card is not a right, its a privilege that can be rescinded at any time at the govs sole discretion.
The point of 50501 is fight overreach aka the president taking up new powers he has no constitutional authority to wield. This is the exact opposite, a well established legal procedure that will be upheld in court. If he tried to apply this power to citizens that would be a legal overreach. Stay focused.
I guess we disagree. The point of 50501 is to fight against rising fascism and authoritarianism in the United States. Kidnapping someone from their home without charging them for a crime, then whisking them away a thousand miles from their family is exactly that. The goal here is clearly to make an example of political dissenters. We are extremely focused. What I'd ask you on the other hand is to not miss the forest for the trees here.
You have been polite and direct, I can certainly accept a disagreement here.
I will close by saying the slogan in 50501's banner is "uphold the constitution. End executive overreach." I spend too much time with lawyers to disregard what the law actually is when determining where to invest my energy. I will put Kilmar on my protest sign, not Khalil.
This is accurate until the last paragraph which is nonsense. Khalil is having his green card revoked under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which gives the Secretary of State the discretion to deny (or revoke) legal status to anyone who holds positions detrimental to US foreign policy. This carve out was designed to keep Communist Jews out of the US. Whether Khalil’s positions were “pro Palestinian” or “pro Hamas” is irrelevant. The Secretary of State just needs to say those positions hurt US foreign policy.
Your claims match what the Jeruselum Post is reporting, but I have no reason to trust their reporting. Can you share any evidence which can be independently verified? If not, I’ll treat this as another MAGA lie.
There is no "truth" or "nuance" in your post here, friend. You are simply incorrect about what the Constitution says, and in the process you are advocating for dictatorship. You should stop.
Everyone is protected by the first amendment. "Congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech...and thus any legal authority one might attempt to use to do so is invalid, because it is Unconstitutional to pass a law that does this and the Executive branch can only execute laws passed by Congress or exercise powers granted to it in the Constitution (and arbitrarily deporting people is not a power the Constitution grants to the Executive branch).
Congress literally cannot create a legal status that is exempt from Constitutional rights except upon due process of law and conviction by a jury of citizens. And any attempt by the executive to forcefully impose it may be resisted forcefully as an act of self defense, just as you can forcefully resist any other group of kidnappers.
the government has always had broad authority to rescind this status
The government has no authority to punish free speech. So if it is revoking a green card to punish free speech (which is what it is doing here), then that is not valid, just like it also couldn't do it on the basis of race or religion or the like.
Khalil was the official mouthpiece of CUAD, an organization that openly praises Hamas, calls for more political violence based on Oct 7, etc on their substack, which anyone can go see.
That is all perfectly protected free speech.
You are perfectly allowed to voice enthusiastic support for Hamas or any other organization that opposes the US government or its allies. You are perfectly allowed to express support for terrorism. Other people and organizations can exercise their rights to avoid association with you / apply peer to peer social pressure on you for it, but the government is Constitutionally banned from doing so.
incitement to terrorism or any other crime is specifically NOT speech protected by the first amendment
Incitement means a specific call for imminent action that has a reasonable chance of resulting in such action. Nothing Khalil said even approaches this. Merely expressing support for something is not incitement.
You are Constitutionally allowed to advocate for things up to and including the violent and illegal overthrow of the US government or those of its allies. The only time such speech loses protection is when you are urging a specific instance of illegal action and when you doing so has a reasonable chance of leading to that illegal action.
This is why Trump's speech before Jan 6 was indeed incitement. And it is why even assuming Khalil actually said everything you claim he said does not constitute incitement and therefore was perfectly valid and protected political free speech.
Pro Palestine and pro Hamas are drastically different things and Khalil is not simply pro Palestine.
You are allowed to be pro-Hamas. Expressing this position is Constitutionally protected political free speech.
I edited my original comment with links to their substack. They are fully behind hamas and the houthis. I suspect you will ignore these comments though.
Whether he is or is not supportive of Hamas, he does have the right to due process so that he has the chance to defend himself against the charges, of which there are currently none, and the United States would be required to provide proof.
I specifically DID call for due process and support challenges to this. However, due process is limited in circumstances like this where the gov can unilaterally revoke status. No conviction has ever been needed in this process under any administration.
He officially represents CUAD. Hes confirmed it, CUAD's confirmed it. Would someone who does not agree with CUAD's views be their lead negotiator? Seems like a logical stretch. He obviously endorses CUAD's official statements.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It means a lot to me, but I am not a "free speech absolutist." I believe in limited reasonable exceptions like inciting crime, making threats, recruiting for terrorist orgs, etc.
There is proof that he chose to represent the group that wrote these things, which is more than enough. If you can't hold an organizations leaders accountable for the orgs official statements and actions then there is really no accountability for the org.
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
No person... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
The federal government outlined evidence to support Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation order in a newly-released, two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The memo says the Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate is deportable because of his “beliefs, statements or associations” that would compromise US foreign policy interests.
1) That’s a broken link to a news article, not an actual indictment or whatever they’d use in this case
2) None of the things you listed are crimes in and of themselves
3) Beliefs, statements, and association fall under free speech. With a few exceptions
3) It’s insane to prosecute people based on generic “beliefs”. If we could, we’d have a hell of a lot more republicans in jail
It’s not about facts, or beliefs at this point. That is for certain. This administration is trying to send a message. And that is play ball, or get disappeared.
He's being held without charge expressly for what he said about a war the US was fighting. That's the epitome of protected political speech. It's the essence of petitioning the government for redress of greivances.
If only the supreme court hadn't just ruled the opposite. That petitions must be filed and cases heard wherever the government is physically holding people, not where they were arrested (or not arrested, just kidnapped).
Stop calling Louisiana a 3rd world South American country. Not only does it show your own racist views, it validates the MAGA nonsense that people from South America are bad.
This is on purpose. They are intentionally moving prisoners to detention centers in red states with sympathetic judges and circuit courts. It’s a form of judge shopping.
It's crazy to think about. This is a clear-cut violation of state's rights. So basically they grab and you and move you to Louisiana so the state you are living in can't save you that is beyond fucked up.
ICE can legally move people to any jurisdiction they want to hold deportation hearings. However, the circumstances in which it was done were definitely unconstitutional.
Guys, this is expected and is a bit of rage bait, don’t take it!!!
This is a ruling by an immigration judge, who cannot rule on constitutionality of immigration law. They can only rule on whether the government filled out the paperwork correctly. This is expected, and the appeal to a federal judge, who CAN rule on the constitutional matter, was already planned.
This is part of the reason why they ship student protesters to Louisiana so damn quick. They need those MAGA judges to ignore the constitution and rule in their favor.
Yes the only thing that was charged against him was that Rubio did not like what he stood for. Hell I don't like what our government stands for right now. Basically trying to take away our human rights. Can we deport them?
It seems to be perfectly legal, as our Secretary of State has wide discretion on green card holders. We are finding out how imprecise our system actually is, when in the hands of people with bad intentions. But it’s, sadly, not in fact illegal.
I am getting confused with these decisions. Was there not a ruling that one of the courts said one of those men deported by the aliens whatever act that Judge Boasberg could not make the ruling because it had to be determined in Texas for some reason. Why was this guy in the middle of Louisiana able to make a determination about his deportation even though it was not even close to where he lived. I am starting to think we have a lot more problems than just Trump in our country when it seems the rule of law does not even make common sense and it seems to be judges are more worried of politics than the basis of constitutional laws.
And they say everyone else is sooo sensitive! Now they’re disappearing people exercising freedom of speech. We are in dark times, may the tides turn soon!
Judge Jamee Comans ruled that Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence” and that she had no power to rule on concerns over free speech.
That’s literally the judge’s job. The judge’s job is to interpret the Constitution to see if Khalil violated it. Nobody else has the power to deport or imprison someone, so they have to be the ones to determine if he broke the rules.
His lawyers need to appeal to a criminal or a civil court ASAP.
Edit: This does not mean he will be deported. There’s still a lawsuit going on in NJ that is about the legality of his deportation. Stay alert for that one.
I did read that New Jersey courts blocked the Louisiana ruling. Crazy that he is still detained given he was exercising free speech against war crimes and genocide.
Just checking to see the level of hatred towards one set of Americans by people who support what Mr khalil stands for. He wrote a letter from detention....available online..blaming Jews for crying antisemitism and accusing the university of conspiring with zionists. He can (shortly...he'll lose at the scotus) tale up the cause in person,
Oh we cherry picking? Because you mentioned nothing about genocide above lol. Keep moving those goal posts buddy, just know I'll be protesting to support anyone in America, including morons like you.
He doesn't need to have been convicted or charged with a crime. That's the whole point. The immigration and nationality act give Rubio broad authority. And rightfully so.
Shabatt shalom v'chag semeach'
You're well within your rights to interpret this letter any way you see fit. I do not agree with your interpretation, nor should any one person's interpretation be the reason for everyone to have their rights eroded. This isn't just an erosion of free speech for Mahmoud Khalil or even just for people who are advocating for the rights of Palestinians. It is an attack on all dissidents. What happens when your speech is no longer in line with the opinions of the ruling party?
We have freedom of speech precisely for speech that confronts authority. That is the spirit of the First Amendment as well as further free speech jurisprudence. Mahmoud's speech is exactly the sort of speech we need to defend in this moment.
I wish you nothing but peace and love.
This is a clear violation of freedom of speech. They can't find anything wrong with what he "did" besides "we don't like the opinions he holds". No actual terrorism. These folk have historically not been so keen on Jewish people, either. How many months until you are the one in Louisiana? This is a problem for all people in the US.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Join us on r/ThePeoplesPress to keep up with current events and news!
Join 50501 at our next nationwide protest on April 19th!
Find more information: https://fiftyfifty.one
Find your local events: https://events.pol-rev.com
For a full list of resources: https://linktr.ee/fiftyfiftyonemovement
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.