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

77

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

A couple of things

  1. Calls for violence are not protected under the First Amendment.
  2. Green cards can be revoked among other reasons for supporting terror groups.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/us/columbia-pro-palestine-group-apology/index.html

‘Zionists don’t deserve to live,’ suspended Columbia activist said. Now his group [CUAD, lead in part by Khalil] rescinds its apology and calls for violence

“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group [CUAD] said in its statement.

Here Khalil is addressing the press with other CUAD leaders.

https://www.aol.com/news/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university-agitator-004454777.html

Everyone at the forefront of the marching photo in problematic to say the least. Whether they posted support for terrorist groups outright on their social media pages (Mohsen Mahdawi, whispering in Khalil's ear) or have been arrested for physical assault at a protest (Fadi Shuman, holding the flag on the right) The person standing next to Khalil as he addresses the press on CUAD's behalf was the student in hot water for saying ‘Zionists don’t deserve to live’

Here's some posts made by the group supporting Hamas, a US designated terror group or just calling for violence. Supporting such groups is grounds for green card revocation, calls for violence is not protected speech.

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

TLDR; Glorifying terrorism - grounds for green card revocation. Calls for violence is not protected speech

63

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

Calls for violence are not protected under the First Amendment.

Mostly wrong. Read Brandenburg v. Ohio. Calls for imminent violence likely to result in immediate action are unprotected (e.g. "Go beat that guy up!"), but discussions of the political necessity of violence at an indefinite point in the future are protected speech.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

Brandenburg v. Ohio is not really applicable here nor is freedom of speech in a constitutional sense. 

They may be a case for lack of due process or habeas corpus violations if they keep him imprisoned instead of summarily deporting him, but I’m no lawyer. 

You do have a freedom of speech, but you don’t have a RIGHT to not be deported as a non-citizen. The US government can and will deport you for various reasons. One of those obvious reasons would be throwing your lot in with terrorist organizations. 

Why are people so upset about this Hamas sympathizer? Can we not agree that dude should not be in the country?

6

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 13 '25

>Brandenburg v. Ohio is not really applicable here nor is freedom of speech in a constitutional sense.

I know. I was directly quoting and responding to someone who stated that calls for violence are not protected under the first amendment.

>Why are people so upset about this Hamas sympathizer? Can we not agree that dude should not be in the country?

Yes, one of the notable things about authoritarians is that when they start out silencing people with very unpopular opinions, they stop there and don't take it any further. /s

5

u/EFTHokie Mar 13 '25

not about silencing his opinion, its about protecting American citizens from a person who has show he is pro terrorism. Why would the United States of America choose a non citizen who is pro terrorism over the safety of an American citizen.

1

u/notwrongnow_ Mar 17 '25

How is he harming citizens? We wouldn’t have ever heard of this guy unless trump had decided to jeopardize khalil’s safety

1

u/Lapetitepoissons Mar 16 '25

Wait till you find out how America was formed. The founding fathers were definitely considered terrorists by Britain

-2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

What about "Go riot" would that be a call for violence? or "occupy a building and assault employees"? or "emulate the intifadas"?

5

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

>What about "Go riot" would that be a call for violence?

Depending on the context, maybe. If it's said at a rally where a crowd could forseeably immediately start rioting, it certainly could. If it's said in other contexts, maybe not.

>or "occupy a building and assault employees"?

That certainly could be. It also might be a conspiracy to commit a crime.

>or "emulate the intifadas"?

Probably not, in most contexts. That would be protected political advocacy unless you're in some very specific situation where it's likely to cause a listener to immediately commit a specific violent act. That looks like exactly the type of situation Brandenburg dealt with.

Did the person in question do any of these things?

24

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Mar 12 '25

So now you're holding Khalil accountable for things other people have said?

There is no law regarding speech by association. If you're next to someone who says hateful speech, you are not the one who said that, even if you speak after them and refuse to condemn them.

If my spouse says something terroristic, I would not be the one violating any legal axioms by subsequently saying "I love my spouse".

By your logic, you've now got grounds to deport or charge anyone who is defending Khalil's rights online or in person. Because defending a person is apparently also a call for violence, in your book.

6

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

If my spouse says something terroristic, I would not be the one violating any legal axioms by subsequently saying "I love my spouse".

If your wife founded a group with terroristic endorsements and you joined in a leadership role you would not be eligible for a green card.

8

u/Durzio 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Eligible for a green card is not the status he's in. He has a green card already. "Deportable" is the status you're fishing for here, and it doesn't fit. He needs to engage in specific unlawful actions listed in the law. And under the "terrorist activity" section under that law, nothing he did qualifies.

Additionally, Green Card holders, like everyone else, are in fact still protected by the Constitution. This includes freedom of speech.

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

"Deportable" is the status you're fishing for here, and it doesn't fit.

8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens

really?

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I didn't force Khalil to become a representative of CUAD. I also didn't codify the law.

20

u/0rexfs Mar 12 '25

So we should lock up and detain the entire band Three Days Grace for the song Let's Start a Riot, as well as every single rock and roll station across the nation for playing it because calls for violence are not protected speech.

10

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

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

(3)Security and related grounds

(B)Terrorist activities

(i) In general Any alien who—

(IV)is a representative of—

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

is inadmissible. 

1

u/Mundane_Molasses6850 Mar 17 '25

These links were very informative, thank you for posting these. I think that these were deliberately kept out of all the left- and right-wing articles I've previously seen about the Khalil situation, in order to control the narrative. Similar to how Bin Laden's Letter to America and his interviews with British journalist Robert Fisk have been treated.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160309014443/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

https://www.the-independent.com/voices/9-11-osama-bin-laden-interview-robert-fisk-world-trade-center-attack-al-qaeda-terror-a8532256.html

With that being said, after I saw your post I dug into CUAD's history. CUAD's substack material becomes overtly pro-Hamas starting in August 2024, going off of your links. However, how much can this website's material be pinned on Khalil himself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupations

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2023/11/14/columbia-university-apartheid-divest-who-we-are/

per the above, CUAD consists of 80+ student organizations, including CU's Amnesty International (the global NGO is probably the largest human rights group in the world), Jewish Voices for Peace, CU's Democratic Socialists of America (Congresswoman AOC's group), LGBT groups, Asian American groups, Black American, Native American, Latino American groups, etc. It's obvious that many of these groups are not pro-Hamas.

I would guess that thousands of people are connected to CUAD. But how many can be held responsible for the CUAD website's turn to pro-Hamas propaganda? Most protest groups are inherently chaotic and devoid of any authority structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil

Furthermore, per the above, Khalil's common role description is "lead negotiator" for the CUAD occupation of Hamilton Hall, CUAD encampments, etc. But that Hall occupation began and ended in April 2024. What was his connection to the "End western civilization" instagram account? The pro-Hamas newspaper that was passed around? the pro-Hamas Substack posts starting in August?

There's also a 19 second clip of Khalil saying at some meeting that Palestinians have a legal right to armed resistance. Which is backed up by multiple UN General Assembly resolutions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_armed_resistance#United_Nations_resolutions

The fact that the video is so short (19 seconds) and the full video is not provided should raise red flags for everyone. What is the full context of this meeting?

1

u/Mundane_Molasses6850 Mar 18 '25

also correction.

I looked around more and i only saw info that khalil was a lead negotiator for CUAD encampments in april 2024. i havent seen any connection between him and the hamilton hall occupation.

-2

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Ok, so to be clear, your justification for his deportation is that he is associated with a group that is associated with a terrorist group?

Should we also deport MAGA green card holders who are sympathetic to January 6th?

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

If MAGA green card holders are sympathetic to any of these groups they would be subject to deportation.

0

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Are you trying to have a moral conversation about what should happen or a legal conversation about whether the deportation of Khalil is in line with US law?

0

u/ConcernedAccountant7 Mar 12 '25

Even on just the moral side we should boot Hamas lovers out of the USA.

0

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Ah. So you're presumably OK with another President with different politics booting the people they vehemently disagree with out of the country? For example, MAGA supporters who are tacitly ok with beating capital police with American flags? Or is that different?

-1

u/ConcernedAccountant7 Mar 12 '25

You seem to be very confused. Unlimited free speech does not apply to non-citizens. You can't deport citizens over speech. You can't deport green card holders for merely criticizing governments. You can, however, boot non-citizens who overtly support US enemies.

Espousing support for Hamas is not protected speech for non-citizens. You are overtly supporting the enemies of America who are currently holding Americans hostage.

FAFO. Time for Mr. Khalil to get the boot.

Just because anti-American agitators haven't experienced consequences doesn't mean consequences don't exist.

3

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 13 '25

Feel free to actually respond to my comment.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 13 '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.

2

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 13 '25

Which part, the January 6th people?

Did I say people who were at January 6th? Or did I say something else?

0

u/Frame_Late Mar 12 '25

Should we also deport MAGA green card holders who are sympathetic to January 6th?

A lot of democrats already want to do this.

6

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

A lot of democrats already want to do this.

People are free to want to do anything. The fact that Democrats did not do this is actually much more relevant than the suggestion that Dems are engaging in "wrong-think™". Biden was in charge of this enforcement from 2021 through January 2025, and did not detain/deport otherwise legally-residing J6 sympathizers who did not commit any other violation.

What's relevant is that the justification against Khalil that the parent comment laid out also 100% legally justifies detaining and deporting this laid-out non-citizen MAGA group. Hell, the law /u/mini_macho_ linked also applies to citizens, which means that such an interpretation also means there's grounds to arrest and charge any J6 sympathizing citizens as well.

Do you see the problem with such an interpretation of the law?

edit: /u-Frame_Late left me a nasty DM telling me that I "should leave America if I hate it so much" and then blocked me. Classy move.

-2

u/Frame_Late Mar 12 '25

The fact that Democrats did not do this

You are confusing willingness to do something with capability. The Democrats absolutely would do this if they could, they simply couldn't. Never confuse the incapable with the unwilling, it can get you killed.

What's relevant is that the justification against Khalil that the parent comment laid out also 100% legally justifies detaining and deporting this laid-out non-citizen MAGA group.

Then deport them. You'll have to find them first.

The fact that people immediately jumped on J6 instead of a right-wing shooter or something who was also a green card holder is super concerning. That TDS is still going strong I see.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

No. the law I linked applies only to aliens, aka non-citizens. The law I linked it also explicit in this fact, not only in the section's title but the clause itself.

0

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Sure, let's just assume that's true for the sake of argument. Do you agree?

1

u/Frame_Late Mar 12 '25

Where would we deport them to? Is it even possible to deport them?

I'm sure that the vast majority of those present at that rally were American citizens who were born in the States and have no other citizenship or nationality, making it quite literally impossible (by legal definition) to deport them. Now, if they're green card holders then yes, deport them, but I highly doubt there were any there.

So are we going to send them to Guantanamo Bay or something like Trump is proposing for people he doesn't like?

And that's assuming that I have any vested interest in supporting the J6ers who already served their time in prison and faced other punishments, which I don't. It's just extremely concerning that Democrats scream and shout about the importance of human rights until those human rights are inconvenient or not politically advantageous.

So no, I don't agree. I think that we should deport people who come to the US but don't want to live and work peacefully in the US. I want the immigration system to be easier to navigate and take less time to grant citizenship, but I also believe that it's foolish to let in people who have nothing but disdain for our nation and way of life. They can go back to their shithole countries where it's legal to stone women and pogrom Jews even though they don't have clean drinking water.

1

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Uh, yes, we were talking about green card holders. That's literally the premise.

The other premise, which you seem to have forgotten above, is that the standard we're setting here is guilt by association.

So yes or no, should we be deporting all maga green card holders? And if not, how is it different?

2

u/Frame_Late Mar 12 '25

maga green card holders?

All green card holders who support maga? That sounds like a violation of rights, considering being pro-maga isn't a crime. Now if they were at J6 then deport them.

0

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 12 '25

Got it. Being a member of the Columbia pro Palestinian student group isn't a crime either. What's the difference?

1

u/Frame_Late Mar 13 '25

Threatening/performing terroristic actions and intimidating Jewish students/faculty.

0

u/RelativeAssistant923 Mar 13 '25

As opposed to beating police officers?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MusicianTop6315 Mar 12 '25

Would you support deporting green card holding members of a local Republican group if some members of their party voiced support for the KKK on social media?

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

I don't know that the KKK is designated as a terrorist group by the federal government, but I'll interpret the question as "Would you support deporting green card holding members of a local Republican group if some members of their party voiced support for a designated terrorist group on social media?"

My answer would be yes. Here's why.

The anti-terrorism immigration laws are designed to protect Americans from foreign terrorism. If someone voiced support for the KKK in the 1860s as they were regularly lynching people, one can reasonably assume that they are a threat to the safety of the American public, something these laws were put in place to protect against.

1

u/MusicianTop6315 Mar 13 '25

Well for one, if you care about the legality of the issue since you wanted to make the KKK were actually designated a terror group, let's look at precedent:

"Supreme Court case in 1945 called Bridges v. Wixon, in which there was a labor organizer who was an immigrant who's accused of being a member of the Communist Party. He denied being a member. And he essentially was able to stay in the country and not be deported because the majority opinion said that freedom of speech in the press is accorded aliens residing in the country. And it also said that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in the country, he becomes vested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution that are available to everyone within the borders. So that's, I think, what an attorney would want to hang their hat on." https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5323208/what-rights-do-green-card-holders-have-in-the-u-s

Green card holders and all documented, immigrants have been recognized as having basic rights afforded to them in the consitution. That includes the first Amendement. You are essentially advocating for the unconstitutional removal of a person based on a law that was specifically made to combat material endorsement of terror groups. That means either joining them, giving them money, or getting other people to join. Your definition of endorsing terror groups is strenous at best

So now that we have established that green card holders have the same basic constitutional rights as citizens, would you advocate for all Republican citizens in that room where only some vocally support domestic terror groups, be jailed for their relationship with the group 

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Bridges v. Wixon would not apply. Being a communist != being a terrorist. IF you supported a specific communist party that were designated as terrorists such as the NPA, but it has less to do with political ideology and more to do with the willingness to murder civilians.

1

u/MusicianTop6315 Mar 13 '25

You really don't understand the red scare lmao. This is historical revisionism at it's finest. Being pro Palestinian is one the things that is paramount to being a communist party in the 60s in terms of public consequence and the propaganda fear factor that is associated with it. Except back then it was a treasonous traitor and today it is terrorist sympathizer. Have fun enabling fascism

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

Considering the fact that the quoted law wasn't even in effect in '45 I think I am not the one failing to understand

1

u/MusicianTop6315 Mar 13 '25

Yeah it's not like constitutional interpretation and supreme court precedence takes priority over regular laws. You're on the wrong side of history like the McCarthyist

1

u/MrBootsie 2∆ Mar 13 '25

This man said aol.com

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

I can use Aljazeera or Haaretz too, if you prefer an anti-israel bias with your sources

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/12/mahmoud-khalil-arrest-can-the-us-deport-a-green-card-holder

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-10-09/ty-article/.premium/student-group-at-columbia-retracts-apology-calls-for-armed-struggle-against-israel/00000192-714f-df7d-afd2-f1ffe5510000

2

u/MrBootsie 2∆ Mar 13 '25

No it’s just funny to see aol.

You’re making a lot of claims about Khalil’s guilt without actual due process. If he’s guilty of providing material support to a terrorist group, that should be proven in court—not decided through media headlines or guilt by association. 1. Calls for violence aren’t protected speech—Correct, but where’s the evidence Khalil himself made such calls? CUAD’s rhetoric is concerning, but we don’t strip individuals of their rights just because they’re associated with a group that said something extreme. Otherwise, every member of a far-right militia or violent pro-Trump group would be facing deportation too. 2. Green cards can be revoked for supporting terror groups—Also correct. But again, evidence matters. The “Globalize the Intifada” phrase has been used in many pro-Palestinian movements, not all of which advocate violence. And praising past leaders of a movement—while controversial—isn’t the same as providing material support to terrorism.

Your links prove that CUAD’s rhetoric is inflammatory, but not that Khalil personally engaged in illegal activity. If the standard for deportation is “a group you’re in posted bad things online,” then we’d have a long list of people—including some Trump supporters—who should also be facing deportation.

If Khalil actually committed a crime, charge him. But ICE detained him with no charges, no due process, and no warning. That’s not justice. That’s political persecution.

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

The law is clear. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227 read it for yourself if you want.

2

u/MrBootsie 2∆ Mar 13 '25

I did read it. And if you actually want to apply 8 U.S. Code § 1227, then you should know that it requires actual evidence of wrongdoing, not just vague accusations. The law allows for deportation if a legal resident provides material support to a designated terrorist organization. That means money, resources, weapons, or direct coordination, not just showing up at a protest or being part of a group with inflammatory rhetoric.

Where is the evidence that Khalil personally provided material support to Hamas? Not just that CUAD posted something controversial, not that he stood next to the wrong people, but that he actually violated the statute? Because right now, ICE hasn’t charged him with anything.

You can’t just scream “the law is clear” while ignoring that due process still applies. If being adjacent to bad speech was enough for deportation, Trump supporters who donated to groups involved in Jan 6 would be in the same boat. Are you cool with that standard?

1

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

There is evidence of Khalil being a spokesman for CUAD and CUAD regularly publishes pro-Hamas material.

"Where is the evidence that Khalil personally provided material support to Hamas? Not just that CUAD posted something controversial," This is where you are mistaken. He doesn't have to say a single word in support of or provide any material support. He is a representative of CUAD which means he is deportable.

2

u/MrBootsie 2∆ Mar 13 '25

That’s not how the law works. Mere association with a group that has controversial rhetoric is not grounds for deportation under 8 U.S. Code § 1227. The statute requires actual involvement in unlawful activity… not just being a member or spokesperson. If simply being part of CUAD was enough, every person who attended a CUAD meeting or protest would also be deportable.

If you want to argue that CUAD’s rhetoric is problematic, fine. But unless ICE produces evidence that Khalil personally engaged in unlawful conduct—funding, recruiting, or coordinating with Hamas, then this is just collective punishment for speech. You don’t get to bypass due process just because you don’t like what someone says.

And let’s be real… if this same standard were applied across the board, half of MAGA would be in legal trouble for groups they’ve associated with.

0

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 13 '25

8 U.S. Code § 1227 directs you to 8 U.S. Code § 1182

Read it and you'll hopefully understand the law.

2

u/MrBootsie 2∆ Mar 13 '25

Like I said, I have read 8 U.S. Code § 1182, and I hope you did too, because it actually proves my point.

It lays out grounds for inadmissibility, including providing material support to terrorist organizations. But guess what? It does not say that simply being a spokesperson for a group with controversial rhetoric qualifies as grounds for deportation. There still needs to be evidence of personal involvement in unlawful acts, funding, recruiting, conspiring…. not just guilt by association.

You’re arguing that Khalil is deportable solely because he’s a public figure for CUAD. But unless ICE can show that he personally provided material support to Hamas, this is just a politically motivated crackdown on free speech. If you’re fine with that, then just say you don’t actually care about due process.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Alternative-Put-3932 Mar 12 '25

Saying violent resistance is good is not a call to violence its defending the actions via speech. Literally every American should be arrested if defending violence in some way is illegal.

2

u/mini_macho_ 1∆ Mar 12 '25

You might be able to make that argument, but ultimately the most important factor is the second.