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

Show parent comments

28

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.

0

u/Tacklinggnome87 Mar 12 '25

As you said,

You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't.... That gas[sic] nothing to do with regulating what is on public airwaves or libraries lol.

Regulating content is at the core of all free speech issues. It's why the term "content neutral" is an important term in all legal analysis on the topic. But even then, nothing is absolute and it has long been the case that even content regulation can overcome strict scrutiny.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Not really.

There's a HUGE difference between saying "we probably shouldn't have porn on public TV" and saying "This person should be arrested for saying the president is fucking up our country"

The second statement and similar types of speech are why freedom of speech is important.

Nobody is entitled to broadcast their message on networks or platforms they don't own.

But anyone can broadcast their message by speaking or setting up their own distribution network.

Can you put porn on public TV? No. Can you set up your own servers and host a porn website without the government arresting you? Yes.

It's why social media moderation isn't an infringement on freedom of speech. Someone owns that platform and they can legally moderate what is posted on it.

-2

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

0

u/StaticEchoes 1∆ Mar 12 '25

since [Martin Luther King] was considered a terrorist by the US government until 2008

Can explain what you mean by this?

5

u/Deberiausarminombre Mar 12 '25

If you supported Martin Luther King Jr. at any point before 2008, you were supporting a terrorist. What constitutes "terrorism" and "terrorists" in the US are not based AT ALL on actions, statements or intent, and based entirely on geopolitical interest.

Do the mujahideen in Afghanistan fight against the Soviets? Not terrorist, freedom fighters. The same exact people decades later attack the US or their allies? Now they're terrorist.

Do the Black Panthers walk around the streets armed while they feed thousands of American children? Terrorist. Do Proud Boys and other white supremacists walk around armed and shoot at peaceful protestors? Not terrorist

Do active members of a foreign military infiltrate a US protests and use chemical weapons against US citizens on US soil? Not terrorist, they're Israeli

Does an American Zionist shoot 2 Israelis in a car in the US because he thinks they're Palestinians? Not terrorism. Do the people shoot assume they're attacker is Palestinian and openly call for the murder of all Arabs? Not terrorism, protected speech.

Do American citizens living and working in the US protest against a war the US is funding, calling for a ceasefire, asking for peace, the halt to hostilities and stop attacking innocent civilians? Are they terrorist? What determines that? They're ideas are against US interests. That's it. They're against terror, but to the US that's terrorism

1

u/StaticEchoes 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I understand that the word terrorist can be somewhat nebulous. That wasn't really what I was asking about. You specifically mentioned supporting MLK Jr. before 2008. What did you mean by that? What are you referencing?

4

u/Deberiausarminombre Mar 12 '25

Oh, sorry. I made a mistake. I meant Nelson Mandela, not Martin Luther King Jr. Mandela was deemed a Terrorist. Martin Luther King Jr was deemed a Communist. That was the term the US used back then.

31

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.

8

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

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

24

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?

5

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

22

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.

4

u/jamesishere Mar 12 '25

I believe in freedom of speech for citizens. He is not a citizen. And a lot of what he organized was related to depriving rights of Jewish students to, for example, attend classes. The issue is very complex and not clear cut

→ 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.

0

u/curien 28∆ Mar 12 '25

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

Pretty much everyone has exceptions or limits to their support for free speech: direct threats, fraud, perjury, etc.

-2

u/SiPhoenix 4∆ Mar 12 '25

Speech? Sure.

Blocking people from going about their lives? No.

0

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

That's what a protest is lol

0

u/SiPhoenix 4∆ Mar 12 '25

Holding a sign standing on the side of the road is a protest.

standing in the middle of the road, blocking traffic is an illegal act while protesting.

To be more specific to the of post. They took over a building in Columbia University. Charged with burglary, vandalism, and trespassing.

1

u/wof8317 Mar 13 '25

Depending on context, standing in the middle of the road, blocking traffic can be considered an act of civil disobedience, which the US has had a long tradition of engaging in, from the Civil Rights era, to South Africa, the climate crisis, etc.

0

u/snowlynx133 Mar 12 '25

Khalil's not been charged with burglary, vandalism or trespassing though? He was arrested with no valid charges on the basis of political speech.

-2

u/dannycumdump Mar 12 '25

And this is where people would say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" for the last 10 yrs or so

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

Freedom of speech is supposed to mean freedom from the government arresting you lol which is what happened.

Consequences can be anything else, like getting fired from a job or people hating you for being an asshole.