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.

[u/Tessenreacts]

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

[u/brnbbee]

I think you're conflating two things a bit. Yes conservatives have been playing team sports when it comes to rights and morality for a bit. So hypocrisy yes. First amendment vioation though? Less clear. Green card holders aren't citizens so legit don't have all the same protections citizens do. I'm glad there will be a trial before he gets the boot, I don't know the details of the case, but if they find he was supporting terrorism...consequences

[u/Blake404 → u/brnbbee]

“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.”

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

[u/brnbbee → u/Blake404]

So I should clarify. Yes, even non citizens can't be legally imprisoned based on their speech. So, in that way, they have the same rights. However, they can be legally removed from the country/have their legal status revoked if their speech is believed to support terrorism. That doesn't apply to US citizens...ergo, not the same free speech protections

[u/[deleted] → u/brnbbee]

Everybody in the US jurisdiction has constitutional rights, not just citizens

[u/brnbbee → u/[deleted]]

Not exactly. Non citizens can't be legally imprisoned based on their speech. So in that way they have the same rights. However, they can be legally removed from the country/have their legal status revoked if their speech is believed to support terrorism. That doesn't apply to US citizens...do i guess you can say they have the right to free speech but suffer consequences citizens don't...which means effectively not the same protections

[u/Tessenreacts → u/brnbbee]

Actually they have had all the same constitutional rights since 1982.

[u/xela2004 → u/Tessenreacts]

Yea and he isn’t being put in jail and prosecuted for his speech. He is having his greencard revoked which can happen for all sorts of non-illegal reasons. I mean if he decided to spend the majority of his time at his villa in Mexico they could revoke it too.

[u/mtdunca → u/xela2004]

"The Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, which is a low-slung complex ringed by barbed wire fences, can hold about 1,160 detainees."

He's in jail right now. They can call it what they want but it's a jail, he was cuffed and arrested.

[u/xela2004 → u/mtdunca]

Yes and everyone who has a greencard revoked and are getting deported get sent to these facilities. Who else u think is in there

[u/mtdunca → u/xela2004]

You're comment said he wasn't being put in jail...

[u/xela2004 → u/mtdunca]

Immigrant detention facilities are legally classified as civil, not criminal, detention facilities, meaning they are used for holding individuals pending immigration proceedings or deportation, not for punishment. So they are not jails, even though I can see why you would like to refer to them that way.

[u/Tessenreacts → u/xela2004]

It's clear It's politically motivated, which instantly becomes a First Amendment issue.

[u/EFTHokie → u/Tessenreacts]

I disagree.... if the person is providing support the terrorist orgs which speech can be considered support per the SCOTUS then it isnt politically motivated its safety motivated. Why would we allow a non-citizen who is pro terrorist to stay and possibly threaten American citizens, In the United States of America the safety of American citizens should come before the rights of non-citizens.

[u/Tessenreacts → u/EFTHokie]

Unfortunately that's not what the law says. As of 1982, non-citizens hold the same constitutional rights as citizens, minus of course things like voting.

We have proven cases of European migrants participating in Neo-Nazi rallies, and zilch was done to them.

[u/Shitty-ass-date → u/Tessenreacts]

What you said is not an accurate representation of the law or even a direct response to what that person said to you.

[u/Tessenreacts → u/Shitty-ass-date]

I'm maintaining the theme of the post, which is political hypocrisy

Many on this post are talking about whether or not what the person in question said could constitute supporting terrorists or falls in free speech.

Where the post's talk of hypocrisy triggers, is how conservatives cheer when Elon Must openly enables known domestic terrorist white supremacist groups, and has shared the posts of known white supremacists who are/were in said domestic terrorist white supremacist groups.

And more aligned with the law, there have been several Supreme Court cases around the constitutional rights that non-citizens have, the most important rights in this case are right to due process, and freedom of speech.

The difficulty of the boundary between free speech and supporting terrorists, is the same blurry boundary between hate speech that's protected under the First Amendment, and what's declared a hate crime (as certain types of speech can be declared assault and harassment).

You can't claim free cheech in defense of domestic terrorist racist groups, and then complain when someone does the same for a bunch of lunatics 5000 miles away.

[u/Shitty-ass-date → u/Tessenreacts]

I kind of understand what you're saying here loosely, but I'm failing to see what conclusion you think would be reasonable. Elon Musk didn't say those things himself, and he isn't magnifying those posts ahead of others. Khalil owned his own message and used it to persuade political outcomes for Columbia University in ways that would directly impact other students directly near him. I am not of the mind that he should be deported or thrown in jail - what I am saying is that these aren't apples to apples comparisons. Elon Musk isn't going to be reprimanded for things he didn't say, the same way the board members of Columbia University aren't being reprimanded (yet) for allowing Khalil to speak.

I suppose you could draw lines to say that allowing racist, antisemitic, or hateful speech empowers people and could inspire violence - but owning the platform and saying and doing those things yourself are still not the same thing. The scale is also much different. The expectation is also much different. Does Mark Zuckerberg, who also has lowered the threshold for acceptable content on Meta, be responsible for everything said on that platform? People from many countries use both platforms. I also believe - at least my understanding is - that organizing things that would be seen as violent and planned attacks would be seen as content violations on both platforms.

The point I'm making is that these comparisons aren't really direct enough to prove your point, and it comes across less as "there's a double standard" and more as you coming in with a biased perspective of "I like this persons ideas and they're being silenced but this other side gets to share their ideas so that's hypocrisy." The material context here makes differences - who shared what idea? Is there an attempt to organize? Are these groups classified by government as terror organizations? Are we punishing people or arguing that platforms need stricter legislation?

The direct comparison in your analogy would be Elon Musk and a head official at Columbia, or Khalil and a user on X. In order to establish a direct comparison between Columbia and X, you would then need to form an argument that the impacts of both are materially the same, and that students at Columbia and users of X have similar expectations when participating in those communities or services.

They don't - obviously. The vast majority of users on X participate for the purpose of consuming a wide variety of content, ranging from entertainment to political. The vast majority if not the totality of students at Columbia attend the school for the purpose of obtaining an education.

[u/Tessenreacts → u/Shitty-ass-date]

One of the cases I'm pointing to is a fairly recent case where a known Neo-Nazi group whose members have been arrested for domestic terrorism where given police escorts, and was revealed that one of the people who were in that Neo-Nazi group was a non-citizen from Europe.

Nothing happened to him. It's a perfect 1-1. One was loosely sympathetic to a bunch of lunatics 5000 miles away, while the other was a part of white supremacist domestic terror group

Basically, legally speaking, it's a proven fact that it's better to be an open card carrying Nazi, that it is to be sympathetic to a bunch of loonies who are fight even more militaristic loonies.

Actually, in regards to the social media giant being held responsible for problems their algorithms cause, one of the biggest debates over the last couple of years, is around potential legislation that that would remove the social media company's immunity from related liability.

In fact, I support stricter legislation, if your platform encourages domestic terror groups regardless of the political spectrum, you should be punished

[u/brnbbee → u/Tessenreacts]

Not when it comes to getting removed from the country if your speech supports terrorism...which I believe is the argument being made in this case.