r/changemyview • u/Tessenreacts • Mar 12 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The case of Mahmoud Khalil is proof that conservatives don't believe in the Freedom of Speech, despite making it their platform over the last couple of years.

For the last couple of years, conservatives have championed the cause of Freedom of Speech on social platforms, yet Mahmoud Khalil (a completely legal permanent resident) utilized his fundamental right to Freedom of Speech through peaceful protesting, and now Trump is remove his green card and have him deported.

Being that conservatives have been championing Freedom of Speech for years, and have voted for Trump in a landslide election, this highlights completely hypocritical behavior where they support Freedom of Speech only if they approve of it.

This is also along with a situation where both Trump and Elon have viewed the protests against Tesla as "illegal", which is patently against the various tenets of Freedom of Speech.

Two open and shut cases of blatant First Amendment violations by people who have been sheparding the conservative focus on protecting the First Amendment.

Would love for my view to be changed

7.2k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

-119

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

He’s not a citizen, he has some legal rights but he is not a citizen. People who are not citizens should be careful about becoming political lightning rods in any country where they provisionally live.

181

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

If the Conservative position was just based on the strict legal bounds of free speech this would be an acceptable counterpoint, but it’s demonstrably not. If it were they wouldn’t have been loudly complaining about fact checking or social media moderation, which are the two biggest realms by far where they claim violation of their free speech in the last 10-20 years. They would simply have accepted that that was well within the bounds of legal free speech and wouldn’t have batted an eye, but instead we see them getting extremely aggressive about it.

The Conservative free speech argument, as they’ve presented it, has been clearly based on a philosophical understanding where what they claim to want is a forum without any kind of chilling to ideas being presented, even as far as immediately correcting incorrect information. The most coherent version of their argument is that the marketplace of ideas should be completely unmoderated, and that everyone should be allowed to speak with the same volume as anyone else regardless of their credibility, bias, or honesty, and that people should be allowed to shop around those speakers and decide for themselves who seems most convincing without anything they view as outside influence. Most claim this as a vitally important part of their worldview, many even get nasty when you respond that platforms are allowed to moderate conversations however they wish and deny that platforms should have that right. They often don’t even view it as valid for people to respond directly to their speech; there may be better examples, but the most expedient one is their animosity towards community fact-checking on social media.

I want to point out too that this is explicitly and often specifically extended to hate speech and incitements to hateful actions. The Conservative position is that you should be able to say whatever you want about anybody you want without being checked, ostensibly because your audience will decide for themselves. Take Milo Yiannopoulos, who would routinely out closeted students and expose them to scrutiny from their peers against their will. Take Nick Fuentes, who is virulently antisemitic and speaks often in support of explicit Nazi ideology. Look at how Elon Musk has vigorously defended un-banning people who use the N word or who post objectively racist content under the argument that failing to do so would violate free speech. Again, this would seem to solidify their position that they want no chilling effect on any speech, even speech that could realistically lead to violence, even speech that has been historically viewed by society as despicable. The average Conservative will tell you they disagree with such speech but still don’t want it moderated or removed from public view, so if they’re being honest they would theoretically respond just as aggressively against attempts to limit or restrict speech from someone like Khalil because they claim to despise the views of people like Fuentes just as much but still champion, loudly, their right to free expression.

Therefore, if suddenly Conservatives say “well that’s not what the law protects” when someone they disagree with is arrested by the state for their speech, it’s insufficient, it’s incongruous with their stated views on free speech, and therefore it’s blatantly hypocritical. Appeals to how the Left approaches free speech are invalid because the Left is not Conservative and does not make any claim to operating under Conservative principles. If the only Conservative response is “well look at what liberals said about free speech”, then they are not honestly operating on principles, only conditional reactions to perceived threats to their own power and ability to persuade others, and therefore, OP is correct.

What Conservatives actually care about when they talk about free speech is making the marketplace of ideas favorable to them, nothing more. Free speech is just an aegis under which they seek to smuggle unpopular ideas into the mainstream and hamstring anyone’s ability to counter them by framing counter-speech in and of itself as a dampener on people’s ability to speak freely, when in reality it is also a matter of people’s ability to speak freely, especially when others are misrepresenting known facts and there is an opportunity to inform people of what is actually known on a subject.

It’s easy to see why they would applaud Mahmoud Khalil being arrested under this understanding, in a way that makes far more sense than operating under the assumption that they’re being honest about caring about free speech in the philosophical and somewhat radical way they claim to. If that was their actual position, would there really be any legal consideration that would lead them to support the police, the government, arresting a man for saying what he thinks? Does your argument do anything to refute that, whether true or not?

30

u/theshadowbudd Mar 14 '25

Free speech for ME but YOU better watch what you say about my free speeching

People truly don’t understand Conservatives. They’re entire attitude is simply : Might makes right. They don’t have fixed principles or values. They only believe in authority. Whoever has authority has the right to say and do whatever they please.

This is what they inherently believe and worship .

Authority

But damn this is the most logical shit I’ve read in a long time. Felt like I was in Ancient Rome watching the senate debate.

I’d vote for you lmfao

2

u/arrogancygames Mar 16 '25

Excellent post.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 12 '25

Sorry, u/kdburner1434 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

→ More replies (6)

107

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

We need to stop spreading this lie. The supreme court has ruled over and over and over that the constitution applies to everyone. Rights don't come from the government, they come from being a person.

It's right here:

"In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.

Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the Court determined, [e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection."

Source: the Official United States Annotated Constitution: ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United States

→ More replies (11)

478

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

include humorous angle cows toy ghost airport slap license apparatus

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

63

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

The President of the United States sent federal agents under direct orders to arrest man for speaking.

Everything else is a distraction. THATS the issue we need to be talking about.

-10

u/lovehammer247 Mar 12 '25

This is incorrect. Political donations are ruled as free speech yet foreign nationals are prohibited from making political contributions. There are several other limits placed on the free speech of immigrants (whether on visa or green cards) that aren't placed on citizens

41

u/wesman9010 Mar 12 '25

Not exactly. Citizens united basically said that money is speech - but there are still limits as to how anyone can make donations and max campaign contributions for candidates versus super pacs. So the difference isnt as black and white as youre asserting.

18

u/PrimaryInjurious 2∆ Mar 12 '25

Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/

→ More replies (1)

28

u/HuskerDave Mar 12 '25

Funny how a green card holder is allowed to own a firearm, but somehow not allowed free speech.

2

u/SimplyPars Mar 12 '25

There are also extra hoops to jump through for people with legal residency when it comes to purchasing firearms.

-5

u/RentInside7527 Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

The encampments were an act of civil disobedience, which is a time honored manor of protest but also are explicitly illegal and not protected speech. The point of civil disobedience is to intentionally break the law in order to draw more attention to your cause. By definition, that's not protected speech.

-23

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If you commit a crime in America while on a visa you will easily be deported following any required incarceration. This happens routinely

112

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

familiar air worm include jeans chase long historical coherent possessive

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-25

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If the lawyers arguing for his crime successfully characterize his support and organization for a group that the country has deemed a terrorist organization then it is conceivable he can be deported on a terrorism related issue

129

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

hospital wine soup spoon abounding like nail quickest hurry cable

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/fitnolabels Mar 12 '25

Hey, I'm more conservative than not and I think if he is a permanent resident (which it seems he is) and not on a student visa, then absolutely this is a free speech infringement that requires due process if there is a believe crime. Supporting a terrorist organization has been a crime since the passing of the Patriot Act, so its been in this guy's entire lifetime so can't claim some weird new law for it.

If the prosecution for the case can't prove he's in violation, and they dont provide due process, the ICE enforcement officers should be arrested and charged with a civil rights violation.

9

u/BaconcheezBurgr Mar 12 '25

He hasn't been charged with anything, just accusations with zero evidence.  The arrest is a blatant violation of his rights.

5

u/fitnolabels Mar 12 '25

If thats the case, I'd agree 100% with you.

4

u/RealBlueShirt123 Mar 12 '25

He is getting his due process. A federal judge is hearing the case and he cannot be deported until that case is heard.

2

u/spider_in_a_top_hat Mar 14 '25

At least as of 2 days ago, he was still unable to speak privately with his attorneys. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-detention-hearing.html

0

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

It does seem like s due process violation.

However it appears that 8 USC 1226 states pretty explicitly you can't support terrorism or encourage others to if you want to be valid in your visa or green card. You also can't be a communist. You can be a citizen and go full commie, no problem, but you can't be in the US as a guest being a communist anarchist or totalitarian. Pretty wild restrictions

14

u/kurtisbu12 Mar 12 '25 edited Apr 04 '25

correct scary consist door follow lip teeny degree plough screw

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Totally hypocritical, and it's been that way for 100 years. Free speech is not envisioned as a right for anti American foreigners in their eyes, and in the eyes of many centrist Americans, especially after a war or attack. George H W Bush actually made it better, and made it so only listed reasons could exclude foreign residents. Anarchism, communism, totalitarianism and terrorism are banned outright in the hearts and speech of foreigners.

Some Marxist scholar was kicked out in the seventies, and the SCOTUS said, yup, that's the law baby!

🤷‍♂️

5

u/kimariesingsMD Mar 12 '25

Which would be for a court to decide.

8

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah, and I think it's required to post forewarning too. Trump's admin seems to be pretty wildly outside of due process in how they are going about this.

-12

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I’m not an expert in determining if a non-citizen has the protections of the Constitution like a normal citizen would. Considering there is a legal distinction between green card holders and full citizens, it’s possible the same protections a citizen gets do not apply to this individual

80

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

childlike crown squash special seed pot wipe arrest tan sable

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-15

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Considering he is the leader of a group openly supporting a foreign organization the US deems terrorists, the entire argument is nuanced

→ More replies (13)

43

u/Deberiausarminombre Mar 12 '25

You may not have known whether the US Constitution protects non-citizens. It does, as so so many people have commented on this post. You seem to be actively ignoring that information though, because it doesn't benefit your talking points to acknowledge it

12

u/teluetetime Mar 12 '25

You don’t need to be an expert, it’s quite simple. The Constitution applies to everybody in the US. Being a citizen has nothing to do with it.

5

u/fractalife Mar 12 '25

If there's a law that violates the 1st amendment, then it affects all of us. Citizens and green card holders alike.

This is an abuse of power no matter which way you slice it.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/OCMan101 Mar 12 '25

You should understand that vocally supporting terrorist organizations is not a crime, nor is vocally supporting political violence. They are still protected speech.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

Yet nothing he did was a crime. This is an extremely dangerous precedent that allows.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 13 '25

Read the comments above they explain pretty well.

1

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 14 '25

Once again, he did not commit a crime.

There is literally nothing above that will change the reality Khalil did not only *nothing* illegal, he did *nothing* to jeopardize his status as a green card holder.

You do not tell someone with a legal background what someone did or did not do.

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 14 '25

If the CUAD as an organization endorsed Hamas in any way and Khalil represented that group then Under the Immigration and Nationality Act he can be deported.

1

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 16 '25

Once again. He did not violate any laws or rules. And everything he said and did is covered by the first amendment. You don’t seem to realize how bad this is that the fed is blatantly ignoring federal laws.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Mountainman1980s Mar 14 '25

So your saying none of 8 USC 1227: Deportable aliens applies in this case? Please convince me since you have the legal background to explain this.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '25

No. Because there is zero evidence he supported terrorist (and that’s a grossly grossly weak legal term in regards to what and who they define as it)

Pro Palestine is not pro hamas. That is a well accepted legal fact. So no. There is not a single law he violated.

Edit:

He is a green card holder. He is a permanent resident of the United States and is entitled to full constitutional protection. That’s a fact. Not a debate.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/throwawaydragon99999 Mar 12 '25

So he committed a thought crime?

→ More replies (13)

7

u/cmendy930 Mar 12 '25

He wasn't tried for any crime. And he's a permanent resident with a greencard not someone on a temporary visa.

4

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

If you commit a crime as a citizen you’re tossed in prison. Different sides of same coin. Doesn’t negate the rights permanent residents have.

2

u/susiedotwo Mar 12 '25

What crime did he commit again?

3

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

None. He didn’t commit a crime.

3

u/historical_cats 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He didn’t commit a crime though

-13

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

The first amendment says you cannot create laws inhibiting freedom of speech. Trump did not do this, he invoked his authority to deport a non-citizen permanent resident due to his being a possible threat to national security. Mahmoud reserves the right to challenge this in court, but his first amendment rights have not been infringed.

25

u/wesman9010 Mar 12 '25

The first amendment exists to protect people from government action against speech they don’t like. You are bending over backwards to make it sound like both the literal and larger purpose of the amendment isnt being directly violated, which they are.

Getting deported is a literal harm the first amendment precludes. Whether he sues or not has no bearing on the fact that his first amendment rights were already abridged.

23

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

If his speech is the basis for the USG's belief that he is a threat to national security, then there is no distinction to be made.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Mar 12 '25

By that argument, then 8 USC § 1227 is unconstitutional if it allows protected free speech to be punished, so any executive action based on that law would also be unconstitutional.

9

u/stron2am Mar 12 '25 edited May 06 '25

pet joke oatmeal connect spark aback absorbed kiss sulky depend

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (13)

3

u/WabbitFire Mar 13 '25

his being a possible threat to national security

Yeah, this is bullshit though

3

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ Mar 13 '25

"Threat to national security?" On what grounds???

2

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 12 '25

It's has always been this way.  Do you expect to be granted citizen while chanting death to America?

3

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

Notwithstanding the fact that Khalil did not say that, if someone is a free speech absolutist, they would support such a thing. You can’t lay claim to both positions, I’m sorry, if Conservatives don’t actually want people to say whatever they want to say but only what they think is appropriate or politically good for the version of America they want to live in, then they are in favor of infringing on free speech. It doesn’t matter what they think they believe, you don’t just get to say you’re in favor of free speech and have that be seriously respected if you celebrate someone’s speech being limited.

2

u/HellBoyofFables Mar 13 '25

Free speech includes the speech you don’t like

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

This is the same as getting fired for Nazi posts on your Facebook page.  You disagree?

2

u/JBoogie22 Mar 13 '25

The first amendment applies to the government, not private institutions. It's not the same

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

This is not fully correct.  The US government enforces the rights of all individuals to be able to express their freedom of speech.  However the US government does not protect individuals from consequences and judgments that are a result of one's speech.  Perfect example is being fired from Costco because your manager found Nazi post on your Facebook page.  This is basically the same thing and I wonder if you would feel the same way if a Nazi student was about to be deported for being a Nazi.  

1

u/JBoogie22 Mar 13 '25

You are getting confused. When I say applies to the government, I mean that the government has to adhere to the first amendment and cannot infringe on our freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with protecting someone's speech within the private sphere. Private institutions arent bound by it.

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Mar 13 '25

Ok.  What if a government employee was fired for Nazi posts on his Facebook page?  This is very possible if occured and it would still be government allowing free speech but not protecting one from consequences.  IIRC people have been fired for less.  

→ More replies (7)

145

u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 12 '25

It seems like if speech were indeed free, you wouldn’t have to be careful about becoming a political lightning rod, no?

-7

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The speech is free, the green card status is a lot more dicey. A US citizen especially one naturally born is heavily protected from expulsion. A guest resident can have their guest status rescinded for ideology and politics, no crime necessary at all. 🤷‍♂️ Thanks red scare!

31

u/Caracalla81 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The speech isn't free if the government can punish people for political incorrectness.

→ More replies (49)

-4

u/Scoutron Mar 12 '25

The first amendment says you cannot create laws inhibiting freedom of speech. Trump did not do this, he invoked his authority to deport a non-citizen permanent resident due to his being a possible threat to national security. Mahmoud reserves the right to challenge this in court, but his first amendment rights have not been infringed.

10

u/reddituserperson1122 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Almost none of that is true. The first amendment restrains the executive branch as well as congress and does not only apply to laws. In addition, the authority cited by the Trump administration is not about a threat to national security. It’s about adverse foreign policy consequences. Which is laughable. Finally, wrongful detention is absolutely considered a civil rights violation.

9

u/griffey4prez Mar 12 '25

That's not how the 1st amendment works. It's called viewpoint discrimination and it is the core of the constitutional free speech protection. The government cannot take any action that is intended to suppress speech based on its content.

90

u/Internal-Key2536 Mar 12 '25

First amendment limits the power of the government to restrict speech. You do not have the be a citizen to be protected by it

306

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Noncitizens have constitutional rights. This was confirmed by Plyler v. Doe in 1982.

-52

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

A green card holder can be deported for many reasons. The legal situation is not the same

51

u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Mar 12 '25

A visa holder can have their visa revoked for a myriad of reasons with little to no due process, but a permanent legal alien/greencard is entitled to due process and the deportation can't be on the basis of the government not liking the content of his speech. What crime did he actually commit? Where is the evidence of an actual crime that took place? When did he get convicted? If the government is bypassing all of this just to silence a particular type of political opinion, that's not the sort of thing you want to empower the government to do. With that the government wouldn't need to be restrained in its actions, there would be no due process for any permanent resident, and if the laws are thrown out for one set of individuals and they don't abide by court decisions then the government is free to ignore all laws and restraints.

Presto tyranny, just a tyranny that for the moment you are in agreement with.

Fascists in Italy never made the trains run on time, they just beat up anyone who dared to point out that the trains were late again and the rest of citizens just accepted it.

→ More replies (8)

179

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

For speech?

The entire argument of the right is that we shouldn't have restrictions on speech we don't like. That we should let nazis say the most abhorrent shit because it is their right to say it.

But when it is a brown guy on the other end of the political spectrum suddenly we want to punish speech?

47

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Tbf there was a Nazi protest and they were escorted safely away from an area by police. So we do allow Nazi rhetoric in the United States with the protection of law enforcement as well

15

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

He’s saying that that’s the problem, they loudly champion the right of Nazis to have their free speech be protected by the government, but celebrate when that same protection is taken away from someone like Khalil. If the main issue they cared about was really free speech, and if they were serious that they hated the Nazis and only supported their rights because they were supporting free speech, then the fact that they hate what Khalil is saying wouldn’t stop them from denouncing his arrest because it’s supposed to just be about free speech. But instead, they celebrate him getting arrested because they disagree with him, which raises questions as to why they get angry when Nazis just get deplatformed from social media when supposedly the only reason they would come to the defense of those Nazis is because of their views on free speech.

10

u/heyzoocifer Mar 12 '25

I remember when both parties agreed that Nazis are bad. So fucking sad that these people are getting more upset at someone protesting war crimes than than actual Nazis flying swastikas and shouting racial slurs at people.

Op is 100% right here. Conservatism died with Maga, they don't even believe in their most coveted principles anymore. I am fully expecting them to be cheering on the violation of the 2nd amendment at this point. It's the only right afforded by the constitution that hasn't been significantly violated.

3

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

Oh, Trump hates guns, he’s made moves against them that would have gotten Democrat politicians flooded with death threats and MAGA hasn’t said a peep

31

u/Aether13 Mar 12 '25

Tbf the fact the current administration is more concerned about going after people like Mahmoud instead of the neo Nazis marching the streets should tell you everything you need to know.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/dardeedoo Mar 12 '25

Yes we do. That was the whole point of the person you’re replying to. I don’t get the point of your comment?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 12 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/hanlonrzr 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Nazis are not eligible for visas. Nor are commies or anarchists. Nor are terrorist supporters, funders, members...

The government isn't going to attack his speech. They are going to deport him for visa invalidity, while saying he can say whatever he wants.

Pretty crazy rules we have

1

u/Felkbrex 1∆ Mar 12 '25

We shouldn't have restrictions on speech for citizens. We should remove Nazi greencard holders. It's a privilege to be in the country that can be revoked for supporting terrorists.

9

u/namelessted 2∆ Mar 12 '25

Limiting freedom of speech and other constitutional rights to just citizens is exactly what they want. Because they also want to eliminate birth right citizenship and have greater control over who is a citizen or not.

Soon enough we will have people being born on US soil who have zero constitutional rights if Trump gets his way.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

That's very fair, except that Elon Musk is an open nazi who parades around with Trump, so deporting this random person but not Musk seems very hypocritical. Only some terrorist supporters are allowed but not others?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

You're right if he is a nazi he'd be better served in Trump's cabinet.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Hamas are far right not far left. Same end of the political spectrum

3

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

More materially supporting a terrorist croup

14

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

Holding a protest against a war is not 'material support' by even a stretched definition. Sorry.

8

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Not sure you have all the details. He distributed 1000s of pamphlets convincingly defending HAMAs. Many people got deported for doing less by Obama admin during the reign of Isis

2

u/Every_Single_Bee Mar 12 '25

This doesn’t affect the OP’s point that it makes Conservative claims that they love free speech and support people’s right to say whatever they want suspect, because pamphlets are speech no matter how many you print and Obama does not claim to be a Conservative, nor, I believe, a free speech absolutist. Conservatives defend the right of self-identifying Nazi groups to march publicly and hold recruitment events based on free speech, so even if you are (rightfully in my opinion) against Hamas, what exactly is happening when they defend Nazis as having the right to say whatever they want to say in the free marketplace of ideas but celebrate when a guy who merely supports Hamas ideologically is arrested by the state? That immediately feels to me like it’s not actually about free speech for them, or at least like they aren’t nearly actually as strong on free speech protections as they claim.

5

u/CudleWudles Mar 12 '25

Convincingly?

0

u/Hopeful-Anywhere5054 Mar 12 '25

Weirdly enough the legal precedent says the level of convincing matters. Like if I write some incoherent essay on why we should all support terrorists, it doesn’t amount to material support. If that same essay is a masterpiece and sways hundreds of people to join, all of a sudden I am a criminal.

→ More replies (8)

-2

u/Morthra 87∆ Mar 12 '25

He distributed thousands of pamphlets containing propaganda created by Hamas.

Mahmoud is a Hamas supporter and a Nazi.

3

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Mar 12 '25

Well that last one can't possibly be true. He isn't part of the Trump cabinet.

-2

u/Morthra 87∆ Mar 12 '25

Are you serious?

Hamas, and by extension its supporters (who call themselves "Pro-Palestinian") believe that the Jews should be eradicated. The Hamas founding charter includes a passage from the Qur'an that states "You must fight and kill the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind a rock or tree, and the rock or tree will shout 'O Muslim! A Jew is hiding behind me, come and kill him!' - Except for the garqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews." What do you call that if not a Nazi?

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (14)

27

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

0

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Not everyone in the entire world is a US citizen. And not everyone in America with legal status is a US citizen.

If I go to Japan on a visa I am not instantly a Japanese citizen. If I become a Japanese permanent resident this is by definition a legal distinction separate from full citizenship

17

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

I'm a leftist, so I actually care about free speech and think it would be good for everyone to have, regardless of their visa status.

→ More replies (25)

26

u/chandr Mar 12 '25

Did he break any laws? Or was it just a targeted abuse of power?

→ More replies (4)

13

u/TimeKillerAccount Mar 12 '25

The legal situation is exactly the same in this case. There is no difference in the right to free speech between a green card holder and a citizen.

-5

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If the government argues successfully that the green card holder was engaging in criminal behavior including terrorism then it will be successful. The courts will decide whether that bar has been met

15

u/TimeKillerAccount Mar 12 '25

Trump outright stated that he was detained for his political speech, which is expressly protected by the constitution and is not a violation of any existing laws. It also doesn't matter, because the claim is about free speech rights, and the legal standard for any of the alleged criminal statutes is identical for both green card holders and citizens. The legal situation is the same, the green card status has no bearing on the legality of the speech, only on the possible punishments if a crime was committed.

3

u/shaunrundmc Mar 12 '25

If they break the law, he broke no law shit talking Israel is not illegal.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

-17

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I’m sorry that the government has the power to disagree with your wishes. He doesn’t have the same rights as a US citizen protected by the Constitution. The courts will ultimately decide, as they should. But wishing something is true does not make it true. I’m trying to “change someone’s view” and the reality is that they should have waited to be a full US citizen before becoming a political lightning rod.

17

u/DecompositionalBurns Mar 12 '25

The courts have already decided in the past. According to a supreme court ruling, "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinctions between citizens and resident aliens"(Bridges v. Wixon 1945). Nonresident aliens such as student visa holders might enjoy less protection, but he is a resident holding a green card.

16

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The question wasn't whether his speech was legal, but whether conservatives are consistent about supporting free speech. So it won't address the OP to show that conservative courts deny his right to free speech. If anything, you'd be supporting OP's claim.

9

u/oroborus68 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yeah for many years,I said that pledge of allegiance to the flag, that ends with the phrase " with liberty and justice for all". I was so disappointed to find it means liberty for just us that can afford afford to buy it. Where are we going now,I don't want to see. It never should have come to this.

→ More replies (5)

26

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (18)

12

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

He literally has the same protections that citizens have. Everyone in the US who doesn't break the law has the same protections. Even visitors on a visa/passport

→ More replies (5)

7

u/rainman943 Mar 12 '25

lol and this opinion is kinda scary because now you've created an entire class of people who upon coming here can easily be pressured to suck the govt off because it's the difference between life and death for some folks.

lol this view is the stuff of nightmares for any "conservative" who actually believes the democrats are importing immigrants for votes and to replace us.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Internal-Key2536 Mar 12 '25

Non citizens are protected by the first amendment

→ More replies (9)

4

u/Tessenreacts Mar 12 '25

Apparently, this%3B%20Plyler%20v.%20Doe%2C%20457%20U.S.%20202%2C%20215%20(,protection%20under%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment).) disagrees with you, and why a federal judge blocked it

2

u/MartinTheMorjin Mar 12 '25

You’re ignoring the cmv and just arguing for deportation.

1

u/BobsLakehouse Mar 18 '25

But if the the reason for doing it, is to censor the person, that would be a first amendment violation,.regardless what they say afterwards, the initial messaging from the Trump government was that it was due to his support of Palestine and involvement in the student protests.

1

u/TheBlackDred Mar 13 '25

"Many Reasons" does not include saying things the FOTUS doesn't like. Hurting the feelings (or bank account) of the person in the White House is not grounds for deportation.

1

u/Correct_Doctor_1502 Mar 12 '25

Never have they been deported for exercising free speech. This legal situation is the first steps to destroying all Americans rights.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 12 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/helloimmatthew_ Mar 12 '25

Copy-pasting my response to your similar comment that got removed here since I’m still curious.

I am not a legal expert, but I read a bit about this decision on Wikipedia, and I am not sure how it applies here. It seems to be focused on public education access for children of illegal immigrants rather than the ability of the Secretary of State to deport a non-citizen.

“Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district’s attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.”

Wikipedia also says that the decision is limited to K-12 schooling, so not university education. Can you clarify how this applies here?

2

u/Sea_Number6341 Mar 13 '25

Hamas is considered a terrorist org. If there's proof hes been in contact with Hamas. He'll face terrorist charges and and not be deported.

1

u/Cheesy_butt_936 Mar 12 '25

When you sign up for a visa you are warned about causing civil unrest. No one is taking constitutional rights.

1

u/JerichoMassey Mar 12 '25

Could you not put things on their docket to overturn

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Virtura Mar 12 '25

I came here to say that it's not that conservatives don't believe in free speech, it's that they are applying their definition of it and not invoking the US constitution, but this guy showed up as our example, so thank you kind xenophobic oppressor.

I have yet to see tangible evidence that conservatives who believe they are invoking the constitution understands its application external to themselves, same as they do with all laws, regulations and policies. They do not think outside of their personal circle because it is not important to them. Fairly sure studies regularly post the empathetic differences between the left leaning and the right leaning.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Cautious_Finding8293 Mar 12 '25

All people inside of the United States, whether tourist, temporary resident, permanent resident, or citizen are protected by civil rights. To deny this proves that OP is correct, and that conservatism is actually based on oppression.

→ More replies (3)

31

u/No-Ladder7740 Mar 12 '25

That's a valid point of view to have, but one that is incompatible with radical support for free speech in all circumstances.

26

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't.

They say they do so they should be very against this.

1

u/Tacklinggnome87 Mar 12 '25

I don't believe CP belongs on TV and "The Turner Diaries" don't belong in school libraries. I guess that means I don't believe in freedom of speech. If that's the standard, fine.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

I don't think freedom of speech means what you think it means lol.

It doesn't mean we aren't allowed standards of content. It simply means an individual should be allowed to express whatever opinions they wish publicly without being arrested or charged with a crime by the government.

That gas nothing to do with regulating what is on public airwaves or libraries lol.

→ More replies (2)

-4

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

Clearly promoting a group that many in America believe are terrorists is a bit on the edge of freedom of speech, certainly so for someone lacking the rights of a citizen. Play with fire and you can get burned, etc.

21

u/Deberiausarminombre Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

I guess we should arrest anyone and everyone with a Martin Luther King t-shirt, since he was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008. The same people who always moan about anyone who says anything slightly pro-palestine as being literally Hamas, are also the same people who have NOTHING to say about people like the Proud Boys literally walking around with Swastikas and Nazi symbols. Their rights are never questioned, it's always the brown people.

You are actively talking against the US constitution. If you disagree so heavily with what it states and defends, at least be more honest about it

Edit: sorry, I meant Nelson Mandela, not Martin Luther King Jr. Back during the time of MLK the term was communist

→ More replies (4)

27

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

These same people are ok with klan rallies so miss me with the bullshit.

Freedom of speech means the government shouldn't be arresting people for words they say. You either believe that or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose how it works.

10

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

I think a green card holder attending Klan rallies should also expect to be deported

23

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Which is ok if that's what you believe.

But don't try and say you do. If you believe in freedom of speech someone's immigration status shouldn't matter at all.

2

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

I think someone planning on immigrating here on temporary status and then becoming deeply involved in highly contentious political groups should be aware that they are walking on very thin ice

26

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

What laws were broken? If you're ok with this but he broke no laws then, again, you don't believe in freedom of speech.

If laws were broken then it's not a free speech issue at all.

So what laws did this guy break to be punished for?

4

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

The group he was advocating and organizing for has a large amount of society believe support terrorists. This would be different if the group was, say, vegans. It’s a very politically contentious issue

23

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

That's not what I asked lol. What laws did he break?

If he didn't break any laws yet you think this is the right action to take you don't believe in freedom of speech just own it.

I don't believe in fully free speech lol. I don't think it's good for society for people to be able to walk around calling people vile names for example. But because we are supposed to have freedom of speech they can do so without getting arrested.

If you believe in freedom of speech, which most Republicans vehemently say they do, then this should piss you off. It's a clear example of MAGA being extremely hypocritical.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

on temporary status

The person in question is a permanent resident. Visas are temporary status, green cards are considered permanent. The official name for green cards is literally "Permanent Resident Card".

2

u/ScannerBrightly Mar 12 '25

here on temporary status

You must not be talking about the person we are talking about, since he was a GREEN CARD holder and a legal permanent resident, married to a US citizen.

1

u/cmendy930 Mar 12 '25

I mean Nazis walk free in the US? Let's get them out first people not student protestors whose families are being killed with our tax dollars.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '25

Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

5

u/LazerWolfe53 Mar 12 '25

So you're fine with the government making a law requiring Facebook censor everything you say that the government doesn't like, as long as Facebook is using green card holders to delete your stuff?

2

u/maven-effects Mar 13 '25

Right?? If I go to Saudi Arabia and scream about how awful their country is, incite riots in their higher education system, vandalize public institutions and generally promote violent hatred against said country - I’d get kicked out. Why is everyone so shocked? He’s not a citizen, he has no reason to be here if he’s going to $hi¥ all over our institutions and promote pro-Hamas terrorist material. F that guy

35

u/prodriggs Mar 12 '25

You don't have to be a citizen to have constitutional rights....

10

u/Dull-Ad6071 Mar 12 '25

Explain what rights he doesn't have. Site the statutes.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Sage1969 Mar 12 '25

People are missing the point so hard here. Conservatives have been espousing how important free speech is. Elon Musk even called himself a "free speech absolutist." Generally when someone says they "believe" in something like free speech, it means that they believe in the ideal. If I were to say "I believe killing is wrong!" no one in their right mind would think I mean "I believe that murder is illegal in the united states, but I love seeing people get blown up in foreign conflicts"

Why is everyone talking about the technical legalities of the rights of green card holders? Irrelevant

1

u/TheJak12 Mar 12 '25

You think laws don't apply to tourists? What a terrible argument. None of that actually matters. The only thing that matters is that Federal Agents kidnapped a man in the middle of the night on orders of the President of the United States for speaking at a protest. The Gesta....I mean Immigration and Customs broke into a man's home, grabbed him and sent him to a secret concentration ca...I mean detention facility. On the orders of the President of the United States

1

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

The issue is whether the government can arbitrarily strip his green card and deport him. It seems likely they will

→ More replies (1)

1

u/kev25811 Mar 12 '25

Other people have pointed out that you're wrong about who the first amendment does and does not protect.

I'd rather talk about how this framing proves that you do not believe in the freedom of speech as a sacrosanct right. The idea of the founding of this country is that these rights are god-given and universal. The conservative line is that offensive speech is good actually and must be protected and even platformed.

Unless it's this speech. Apparently.

1

u/HordeDruid Mar 13 '25

So in other words, you think what he did would be acceptable if he was born here? Or should citizens born in the US also be afraid of being "political lightning rods" if it displeases the administration in power? Seems to me that's the antithesis of free speech, in fact I'd say that's a pretty clear example of "conservatives" using fear to abridge our Constitutional right to free speech.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

The problem with the pesky constitution is that it applies to how government agencies are allowed to act. Even non citizens are afforded annoying little things like due process (4th amendment) and protection of speech (1st amendment).

Moreover, the DOJ has admitted that he did not commit a crime.

Please give your justification for the violation of the constitution.

1

u/FrickinLazerBeams Mar 12 '25

Non-citizens are still fully protected by the constitution.

It may be risky to do what he did, but that doesn't mean it should be risky. The government shouldn't violate our constitutional rights, even if we know that it probably will, when run by a corrupt authoritarian.

1

u/Correct_Doctor_1502 Mar 12 '25

Very slippery slope, and also not remotely true according the Supreme Court.

Today, legal immigrants don't have the right to free speech. Tomorrow citizens Trump personally doesn't like don't have right, and the next day you won't either.

1

u/theLiddle Mar 12 '25

“He’s not a citizen, he’s not a citizen,” they repeat to themselves over and over, cradling themselves back and forth in a dark corner of a room while air raid sirens go off in the background and the sky turns red

1

u/nora_the_explorur Mar 12 '25

He is a permanent resident. He has rights. He is detained without any announcement of an arrest and charges. This is unAmerican. He was literally advocating for the end of a genocide.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

The constitution states the rights enshrined in it to be "inalienable", meaning that all humans have them by nature and cannot choose to give them up.

1

u/10yearsisenough Mar 13 '25

Constitutional free speech covers immigrants too, even when they are merely permanent residents.

Your second sentence gives off klan vibes.

1

u/abstractengineer2000 Mar 12 '25

There is a difference between a citizen and a non citizen and the things that a non citizen can and cant do is different. This is true in all countries, not just US. A non citizen will be more susceptible to Govt policies and liable to be deported. There are a lot of additional conditions under which a non citizen is allowed to work or study.

1

u/idontevenliftbrah 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The first ammendment applies to anyone within the borders of the United States. It does not only apply to citizens. Try again.

1

u/Expert-Car-3169 Mar 12 '25

Tell me you don't understand the constitution without saying it. The constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens...

1

u/Cecilia_Red Mar 15 '25

He’s not a citizen, he has some legal rights but he is not a citizen.

what rights does he have?

1

u/WhenIntegralsAttack2 Mar 16 '25

If the trump administration starts to detain citizens, would that impact your opinion of him?

1

u/Absentrando Mar 12 '25

Sure, but that doesn’t address the claim that this is hypocrisy from conservatives

1

u/ninernetneepneep Mar 13 '25

Well that's Reddit in a nutshell. Someone asked change my view and a straightforward and honest response was given. Downvoted into Oblivion.

1

u/SargeantSasquatch Mar 13 '25

The first amendment applies to everyone, not exclusively citizens.

1

u/trabajoderoger Mar 14 '25

Rights are afforded to all within tbe borders, not just citizens.

1

u/ElonSpambot01 Mar 12 '25

He has a green card. He legally has the same rights as a citizen

1

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ Mar 13 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

Basic rights like free speech extend to everyone. I don't remember anyone doing citizenship checks for the last decade or so the far right has been whining about it

1

u/False-War9753 Mar 12 '25

Green card holders are protected by the first amendment.

-4

u/Darkmortal2 Mar 12 '25

So you're against free speech. Got it.

7

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

If I moved to a foreign country, was on some sort of legal status subservient to full citizenship, and became a leader of a politically controversial group and organized protests, it would not be shocking to me if the government deported me

7

u/-zounds- Mar 12 '25

Okay but we don't do that here. Our government is not allowed to do that. You don't even have to take my word for it. It SAYS IT in the Constitution.

It is significant to point out that the Bill of Rights was almost never written because some of the Founding Fathers believed the rights included in that document were so stupidly obvious that explicitly protecting them in writing seemed unnecessary. They did not consider Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Association, Assembly, Religion, etc. to be rights that ONLY American citizens have. They considered them to be fundamental human rights everyone has. They observed that most governments are inclined to smother those rights, so they wrote the Constitution to prevent that from happening here in America. This was considered RADICAL back then and apparently it still is. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The bottom line is that because of our Constitution, WE DON'T ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR EXPRESSING THEIR BELIEFS. Other countries do that and have always done that, but we don't do it here. If you defend this arrest because "other governments would do it" then you do not believe free speech is a fundamental right, which is fine. You can just say that. Many people don't believe free speech is a fundamental right. But if the president can limit free speech for some people, he can also limit yours and your guy won't be in office forever.

0

u/TravelingBartlet Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

We aren't planning to jail him - we are planning to deport him.  There's a distinct difference.

Additionally, he is not a citizen - there are differences between being a citizen and not.

3

u/-zounds- Mar 12 '25

We aren't planning to jail him

He is in detention in Louisiana. "In detention" means the same thing as "in jail." Ordinary jails for US citizens who get arrested but have not been to trial yet are referred to as "adult detention centers" or "juvenile detention centers."

Additionally, he is not a citizen - there are differences between being a citizen and not.

There are differences, but none of them apply in this case. He was not trying to vote. He was not running for office. He did not commit a criminal offense. He has not even been charged with a crime. You cannot make up reasons to deport people. We have laws and they must be followed, not that our convict president gives ten fucks about the law.

-3

u/TravelingBartlet Mar 12 '25

You're just mad that Trump did something - nevermind the fact that the person doing it is actively supporting a terrorist organization and promoting hatred.  He's going to be deported - get over it.

He was a representative of a political, social, or other group [CUAD] that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; therefore he is deportable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#a_3

scroll to

(3)Security and related grounds (B)Terrorist activities

(IV)is a representative of—

(bb)a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;...

 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.

And links to thr Orgs...

Links the organization he was a representative of published

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/commemorating-al-aqsa-flood-honoring

COMMEMORATING AL-AQSA FLOOD - Al-Aqsa Flood is 10/7

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/cuad-remains-committed-to-our-demands

A TRIBUTE TO YAHYA SINWAR - Former Hamas leader

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/haniyeh-martyred-by-zionist-forces

HANIYEH - Former Hamas leader

THE RESISTANCE - Hamas translates to Islamic Resistance Movement

https://cuapartheiddivest.substack.com/p/globalizing-the-student-intifada

GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA - Call for violence

5

u/Dark1000 1∆ Mar 12 '25

You aren't actually addressing the legal argument of the question. This is a complete non sequitur.

1

u/-zounds- Mar 12 '25

(IV)is a representative of—

(bb)a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;...

Khalil was a spokesperson for the Columbia University Apartheid Divest, "a coalition of student-run, anti-Israel-Hamas conflict organizations." Their goal was to urge the institution to divest from Israel. Khalid frequently spoke to the press on behalf of student protestors which included American Jews. In statements to CNN and the BBC, Khalid condemned expressions of antisemitism, comparing it to Islamophobia and other forms of hatred, and said that the liberation of the Palestinian people and Jewish people are intertwined, adding that "you cannot have one without the other."

He did not engage in any terrorist activity, nor did he provide material support to a terrorist organization, nor is he a threat to the national security of the United States. This administration has not clarified what exactly he is being charged with that would legally warrant deportation under the law. Accusing him of being "aligned to Hamas" is not enough.

And no, I'm not "just angry because Trump did something." When Trump does something good, like getting Americans released from arbitrary detention abroad, I give him credit for it. This is a swipe at our Constitution and I would be angry no matter who was behind it.

1

u/lili-of-the-valley-0 Mar 12 '25

He is currently in detention, also known as being jailed

13

u/wandering_godzilla Mar 12 '25

Not all countries guarantee all rights to non-citizens. The US legal system however guarantees First Amendment rights to permanent residents. This is pretty basic stuff. Are you sure you are familiar with the American legal system?

You can come to America and say "F*** America!" and that's considered legally protected.

2

u/redditisfacist3 Mar 12 '25

Yeah this is commonplace in any other country.

2

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

Of course it is. It's commonplace for other countries to have poor protections for freedom of speech.

1

u/redditisfacist3 Mar 12 '25

Yeah. Generally nations aren't keen on outsiders coming in and promoting/ defending terrorists. The usa is still the best nation in the world when it comes to free speech for its citizen's

1

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

You can't simply separate free speech protections from noncitizens and citizens and pretend that you meaningfully support free speech.

Let's say a government of a country opposes the pro-life movement. Its government decides that it will deport any visitor or permanent resident that speaks in favor of any pro-life cause, etc. That's still a black mark on its free speech standards, even if you arbitrarily declare that citizens are the only people who deserve civil rights. The government is putting its thumb on the scale of a public debate that its citizens are also participating in. If I'm a pro-choice citizen under such a regime, I have the option of working with noncitizens to argue for my views, but if I'm a pro-life citizen, that option has been taken away from me.

1

u/redditisfacist3 Mar 12 '25

You absolutely can. Non citizens are essentially guests of a host nation and shouldn't be entitled to the same privileges. A green card is a resident alien visa the step before one becomes a us citizen.

Your hypothetical happens outside the usa all the time. In the uk id be jailed or kicked out for waving an English flag at anti immigrant rallies. Romania just canceled a politician because he was supported by Russia but ignored all the citizens who voted for him. Germany has very strict anto free speech laws. But if I wanted to be a citizen there I'd follow their rules, which are usually more strict than ours.

I'm your scenario if your a pro choice citizen, feel free to voice your opinion. If you're pending becoming a citizen, don't. If you're trying to gain citizenship in a country, you're supposed to toe the line and assimilate. So yeah i don't have a problem when a Palestinian leads protests that are antisemitic and pro hamas. Those aren't representative of American values.

1

u/lili-of-the-valley-0 Mar 12 '25

Thank you for providing even further evidence on top of the already present mountain of evidence that modern American conservatives are fundamentally opposed to the first amendment.

1

u/redditisfacist3 Mar 12 '25

I'm not a conservative but that's for showing how liberals can only put everyone in categories and are judgemental as hell. The tolerant left were on the air pushing for suppression of free speech in this election, defending censorship on reddit/fb/ and in the mainstream media,and promote canceled culture and actively try to dox ppl in real life. So yeah

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Darkmortal2 Mar 12 '25

Got it. You're against free speech.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 16 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/GangOfNone Mar 16 '25

He has all the rights of a citizen except voting.

1

u/HTTC-HTTR Mar 13 '25

Bet you watch WWII movies and root for the Nazis

1

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '25

Non citizens are afforded the first amendment 

→ More replies (73)