I believe I commented on the issue generally when there were calls to punish these speakers as the encampments/protests were happening. I am more pro-free speech than the limits of the First Amendment, and am against punishing speech outside of specific and limited exceptions (fraud, criminal threats, etc.) If people want to speak in support of Palestine, they should be allowed to do so and should not be punished for doing so.
Is someone who defends the idf's genocide and terrorism of the Gazan population also considered supporting terrorism?
As a general rule, one should judge what a person is advocating according to an assessment of what that person believes or is claiming. A person may (sincerely or not) erroneously claim/believe that the October 7th "Al Aqsa Flood" was a legitimate military operation that did not intentionally seek to target or harm civilians. You can say they are fools or are being deceptive, and I would agree, but that would not constitute an explicit advocacy of terrorism.
That’s the other side. If you’re for this, you’re also supporting a POTUS who could claim that such actions threaten U.S. foreign policy (against genocide) and use that as grounds to deport legal permanent residents who hold that position (supporting IDF actions in Gaza). I believe there are legal permanent residents here with that position.
What if a new federal regime decides that advocating for anti-vaccine rhetoric is a threat to national security and therefore a support for terrorism? For me, the lack of empathy people like you express... that suppressed vindictive nature in me is making me hope that the hate swings back to you and kicks you in the face and your citizenship is stripped and we deport your ass to the Balkans. People remember bullying. People remember the stripping of their basic civil rights. And people remember who were the loudest in defending those fascist actions. Your ideology isn't sustainable. All it causes is violent swings back that the turn you into a victim also. There is no good that comes from this. Including your own personal safety in the long run. Do you understand that? People remember. People take notes. And as soon as they get a hint of agency and power they will remember you supporting their suffering. The sad thing here is this is the only way to convince people like you. We can't change your mind through appeal to empathy. We have to appeal to your narcissism and self preservation instincts.
Yup a new admin could tie affiliation with the IDF as support of a terror organization and deport all residents in America who served in the IDF. By no means will I ever support such an action but this a very "**** around and find out " moment that opens a Pandoras box of violent swings back and forth where one side gets power back and uses the same tactics of suppression of speech the party that lost was using. No one wins.
To play the other side for a second, I'd point out that Hamas has been identified as a terrorist organization by the US and the IDF has not been, whatever the truth of the matter. So, in the counterfactual there would be an additional step of declaring IDF a terror group before deporting everyone. But -- to my original point -- that's another action the Executive would undertake on its own (The Sec of State can add groups to the list). It cannot be tolerated that a single branch of government can unilaterally go after people in our own country without any role for the other branches of government. We're not supposed to be built that way. Both these hypothetical residents and the real Mahmoud Khalil must have access to the courts to test the accusations against him, or our rights are a farce.
Of course the designation of what the IDF would have to change but as you said, if the Trump admin sets precedent of unitary executive theory, then a administration on their own accord can designate the IDF as a terror organization without any pushback from the legislative and judicial branch. That additional step you point to would eventually be meaningless because the designation of what or who is a terror organization is going to change admin to admin. This current admin is also expressing that vandalism of Teslas as a terroristic action. Next admin could say advocating for anti-vaccine positions is a terroristic action. The next administration could say mere affiliation with groups like the Proud Boys is support for terrorism. I think something like this is the most likely to happen if there is a retribution style pushback if MAGA loses power. Any display of MAGA merch could also be considered supporting terrorism. In fact Germany kinda did that with Nazi symbolism. Maybe that will happen to MAGA imagery.
as a resident Alien, Khalil does not have the same set of rights as a citizen. his stay in this country is governed by a set of rules he did not abide by. he is the perfect embodiment of FAFO.
This has been adjudicated plenty of times bozzo. The US Constitution explicitly differentiates between "peoples" and "citizens" for a reason. Freedom of speech and Due process is a right applied to all peoples, not citizens. The right to vote in federal elections is specifically designated for citizens and not "peoples". So even a illegal immigrant has both freedom of speech and due process applies to them. And in this case we are talking about a legal permanent resident. That is what a Green Card holder is. FAFO applies more to people like you if there is a retributive style push back that replaces MAGA and utilize the same unitary executive theory as MAGA to label you a terrorist for supporting MAGA. That is what FAFO really means.
Simple Justice Blog by Scott Greenfield: Free Mahmoud Khalil | Simple Justice Free Mahmoud Khalil 12 Comments One of the least pleasant aspects of being principled is that you have to defend people whose ideology you find repugnant or idiotic. But that’s the test of principle, whether you’re prepared to fight for the rights you demand for the favored for those you despise. I despise Khalil. Free him. Mahmoud Khalil was a graduate of Columbia who was deeply involved in the anti-Israel encampment and other related conduct. Whether you prefer to characterize it as anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas, Khalil has been convicted of no crime for his actions. It may be that he has engaged in criminal conduct. If so, then he should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did, and if it can be proven, then convicted. That’s how it works here, or at least how it’s supposed to work here. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply. Thank you! 10.9k ReTruths 48.7k Likes Mar 10, 2025, 1:05 PM Contrary to early reporting when Khalil was first nabbed by ICE and disappeared into the morass of our immigration detention sinkhole, Khalil was not here on a student visa, but was a legal permanent resident, married to an American citizen. Not only does he enjoy the same First Amendment rights as an American citizen, but he enjoys the right to due process as well. The Trump administration, however, doesn’t see it that way. Immigrant students who express sympathy for Hamas will have their visas and green cards revoked so that deportation proceedings may be brought against them, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted to X on Monday. The State Department, which began carrying out the “catch and revoke” program last week, will use artificial intelligence to sift through foreign nationals’ social media accounts for pro-Hamas sympathies. Rubio said the U.S. has “zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists” and vowed to deport “violators of U.S. law.” While the constitutionality of the program is dubious, it is unambiguously un-American to punish people for political speech. But what about the law, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), allowing for the refusal of entry or deportation of “any alien who…endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization”? This was expressly relied upon by Trump in his Executive Order Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. While the constitutionality remains untested, it may well be that the activists for Palestinians also espouse support for a terrorist organization. Many of the protests have expressly supported the actions of Hamas on October 7th. Even worse, they continue to call for, and justify, violence by Hamas in furtherance of Palestinian liberation. Ilya Somin argues that this should be unconstitutional from a policy perspective. A standard response to this view is the idea that, even if non-citizens have a right to free speech, they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US. Thus, deporting them for their speech doesn’t violate the Constitution. But, in virtually every other context, it is clear that depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech violates the First Amendment, even if the right they lose does not itself have constitutional status. For example, there is no constitutional right to get Social Security benefits. But a law that barred critics of the President from getting those benefits would obviously violate the First Amendment. The same logic applies in the immigration context. While the scope and breadth of free speech for non-citizens that involves support for terrorists may be less than clear, the analogy to denying social security to critics of the president doesn’t seem apt, there being no element of violence toward others involved. Denying benefits to critics of the president seems quite different from a non-citizen, essentially a guest in the United States, coming or remaining here while espousing terrorism. The analogy doesn’t work for me, even if the law seems too vague and overbroad to be constitutionally applied. The putative charge against Khalil is strikingly vague. The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Khalil’s arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” The agency alleged that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” but did not provide any details.What does “led activities aligned to Hamas” mean? It might mean something that would violate the law, or it might mean his pro-Palestinian activities were related to Hamas by logical extension. Or it might mean nothing. Who knows? It remains unclear whether Khalil engaged in either criminal activities or activities that violated 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), assuming the constitutionality of the law. Some are arguing that his seizure is purely a free speech violation, and as of now, that’s very much the case although it is also possible that there is other conduct that is not protected and violates the law. But if so, then charge Khalil with that conduct. If it’s not purely about free speech, it’s up to the government to make that case, not just snatch him and throw him into immigration custody. As of now, based upon the Truth Social twit by Trump, however, it appears that the government’s seizure is based on nothing more than Mahmoud Khalil’s protected First Amendment activities, and that is both chilling and unconstitutional, no matter how stupid and despicable his speech may be. Free Mahmoud Khalil.
I don't like this person either. Is this person capable of understanding a Palestinian not wanting their people to be genocidal? Why is that repugnant to him?
He doesn't expound on why he despises Khalil's views, and I don't think he needs to. The point he is making is that you should defend his right to free speech regardless of your personal like or dislike of his stances.
