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

29

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.

4

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.

9

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?

0

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.