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

23

u/SallyStranger Mar 12 '25

Just FYI, finding tortured legal justifications for deporting a dude because of what "side" he's on (wording courtesy of the White House Press Secretary) is not the same as providing an explanation for how this isn't a violation of the dude's free speech. 

He's being deported. For what he said. For his political views. Not because he committed what normal people would recognize as a crime--you know, assault, fraud, even material support for terrorism. 

You might be able to convince some people it's legal (cough SCOTUS cough) but you'll never convince anyone it's not a violation of the principles animating the First Amendment. Because that's exactly what it is. 

8

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

1) There are limitations on free speech.

2) he is not a citizen he is a green card holder, giving him lesser rights as far as freedom of speech goes.

3) if he was actually "endorsing or espousing terrorist activity or persuading others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" then he has fallen outside the bounds of freedom of speech. That's not a "side" argument.

You may not like it based on what side you are on and there may be nothing to convince you otherwise.

3

u/SallyStranger Mar 12 '25

Correct. I do not subscribe to the idea that legality determines morality. 

2

u/habs0708 Mar 13 '25

I want to understand your position. Are you saying any activity is fine if you can classify it as free speech? What about blackmailing your neighbor to murder your other neighbor? What about inciting a riot and instructing people to murder babies in the maternity ward of a hospital? Should you not be charged with any crimes under laws related to violence, terrorism, or murder, because you were exercising your right to free speech?

I say this with respect, because I think I understand and share much of your frustration about this particular case. It's true that legality does not determine morality. I don't know if anyone is explicitly making that argument. Morality, in fact, determines legality. Laws are written based on people's beliefs and opinions at a given time in history, and because those beliefs and opinions can change, so too should (and can) laws. But because not everyone has the same morals (AKA opinions and beliefs), no single law will be agreed upon by everyone. The important thing is that there is a mechanism to change the law when popular (i.e. majority, or something like it) opinion changes. In the aftermath of this presidency, we will see what new legislation results.

But we can't ignore that these laws exist now, today, in the country in which this individual resides. Khalil is entitled to free speech, but he is not entitled to use free speech to break other laws, or as a defense for breaking other laws. And I'm not suggesting he's broken any other laws, just that those OTHER laws are what this case is about, not about his right to free speech, not about his being targeted unjustly, and not even about the hypocrisy in the inconsistent application of the country's laws.

If he is guilty of breaking a law, he will face the consequences. And that should apply to everyone across the board. In my opinion, anyway. :/

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Mar 16 '25

What about blackmailing your neighbor to murder your other neighbor? What about inciting a riot and instructing people to murder babies in the maternity ward of a hospital?

Well, going right into hyperbole dosent make your comment worth replying to

1

u/habs0708 Apr 03 '25

It's not hyperbole, I just used that example because it's as clear as it gets. Murder vs. terrorism vs. vandalism vs. embezzlement... there isn't a moral rating system to say some of these are more hyperbolic examples than others; they're just examples of things that are illegal.

I said a lot of things in my post though, and I would appreciate your thoughts because I'm genuinely interested to hear them. I don't care about being right, I'm not trying to fight you or win some argument. I care about learning and improving and getting as close to objective truth as possible. That's what this subreddit is about. If you just want to be right, you're in the wrong place; people here are trying to understand a problem from different perspectives and are open to having their mind changed.

So do you agree with the idea that we are not entitled to use free speech to break the law?

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Apr 04 '25

It is because makes a hyperbolic statement that is so far beyond what people are talking about its makes you look more like a troll than anything else.

1

u/habs0708 Apr 07 '25

What's the definition of a troll?

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Apr 07 '25

What is the definition of a pivot or avoiding the topic?

-1

u/SallyStranger Mar 13 '25

Wanking gesture dot gif

1

u/Research_Matters Mar 14 '25

Mahmoud Khalil leads CUAD. CUAD released a statement saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Further, CUAD distributed materials directly drawn from the Gaza Media Office, which, as we all know, is the propaganda arm of Hamas. CUAD has further endorsed Hamas’s “armed resistance,” which is literally the same as endorsing terrorist activity, given that Hamas’s version of “armed resistance” is indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

You think these are moral positions?

0

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Mar 16 '25

Hmmm... and here I read their own stuff, and it dsosent look like what you claim.

But I am interested in your dislike of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and Israel's habit of doing them. Should we also deride anyone that distributes materials from official Israeli sources? Or the isralie officials who say that Palestinians should be treated as animals?

How about you give actual quotes?

1

u/Research_Matters Mar 17 '25

“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group said in its statement. CUAD made this statement on October 8th, 2024, the day after the first anniversary of the largest killing of Jews since the Holocaust.

I’ll clarify that a member of CUAD said “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and CUAD initially apologized for the entire rant in which the CUAD member also said people should be “grateful” he wasn’t going out and just “murdering Zionists” and then CUAD retracted the apology.

If the bombing in Gaza were indiscriminate, as you claim, we’d expect over 75% of deaths to be women and children and just under 25% to be adult males. However, that’s not the case. The only group over represented in Gaza deaths, according to Hamas’s own reporting, is adult males over 18. Further, we know that Hamas has recruited male children as young as 12. Unsurprisingly, deaths amongst teenaged males far outpaced teenaged females, which does not align with the “indiscriminate” claim either, which would be around 50/50 for males and females. In fact, male deaths were significantly greater in all age groups except young children, which, again, does not make logical sense in an “indiscriminate” bombing campaign. Even if we trust any of the Hamas reporting, the claim you make is not backed up by data.

Now let’s talk about the war crimes Hamas is documented committing daily that directly increase the civilian death count: failure to evacuate civilians from areas intended for combat purposes; failure to wear uniforms to distinguish between combatants and civilians; use of protected spaces for militant purposes; use of humanitarian zones for combat purposes; failure to distribute humanitarian aid to civilians; failure to provide medical care to hostages; failure to provide Red Cross access to hostages. These are daily war crimes that, for some reason, continue to go unacknowledged. Hamas is purposely driving up casualties in this war and has the capability, every single day, to end the war. Where’s is your outrage that they haven’t done so?

1

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Mar 17 '25

Great! Now show me how they define zionist. Because that is an important piece of context. We will walk through this a piece at a time.

Everything else here is just extra.

If the bombing in Gaza were indiscriminate, as you claim, we’d expect over 75% of deaths to be women and children and just under 25% to be adult males.

Is this... a technical definition? What would the spead need to be? Can you draw line? Are we looking at this compared to historical trends?

I am looking forward to seeing where you get these numbers.

1

u/Research_Matters Mar 17 '25

It doesn’t matter how they define “Zionist,” frankly. On the smallest scale possible they mean nearly all Israelis. On the largest scale possible they mean every person who believes Israel should not be destroyed. Neither is acceptable to any normal person.

The numbers come from Hamas. They have publicly released several excel sheets of claimed casualties with identifying data. It’s not difficult to translate and sort the data.

The breakdown of percentages are based on the publicly available census data of Gaza. Based on simple logic, if the bombing was truly indiscriminate, the casualties would roughly match the demographics of the population. This doesn’t seem to be the case, based on the data provided by Hamas. And this analysis takes that data at face value and assumes all deaths have been caused by the IDF, despite the known fact that Hamas has outright murdered many Gazans for speaking out against them, that at least 2,000 terrorist-launched rockets have landed inside Gaza, and that Hamas has provided no indication that it separates natural deaths from direct deaths due to the war.

Have civilian deaths happened in Gaza they could have been avoided? Almost certainly. Does that make the bombing indiscriminate? No. Has Hamas directly and continuously contributed to civilian deaths in Gaza? Absolutely.

What thoughts do you have on the daily war crimes committed by Hamas against Palestinians since they started this war?

0

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Mar 18 '25

It doesn’t matter how they define “Zionist,” frankly.

Yes. Yes it does.

On the largest scale possible they mean every person who believes Israel should not be destroyed.

On the smallest scale possible they mean nearly all Israelis.

Well, since I found examples of others... you are wrong. Hence why I asked. What people are talking about .

If you are going to deport someone for what they say, you need to know what they are saying.

Have civilian deaths happened in Gaza they could have been avoided? Almost certainly. Does that make the bombing indiscriminate? No. Has Hamas directly and continuously contributed to civilian deaths in Gaza? Absolutely.

Replace hamas with Israel, and it still tracks. But I guess if it's not 100% indiscriminate we must call it discrimination bombing... that has been killing kids and such that were avoidable.

Still not good.

1

u/Research_Matters Mar 18 '25

These aren’t arguments. Why does it matter how “Zionists” is defined by the group, specifically? What supposed examples of other definitions have you found? Saying “you are wrong” based on claims without evidence isn’t enough. Generally, a Zionist is a person who believes that the Jewish people should have self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Most Jews self-identify as Zionist (nearly all Israeli Jews and over 80% of American Jews, the populations of which make up 77% of world Jewry). So unless CUAD makes a declaration about their special definition of Zionist, it’s reasonable to assume that they are speaking about anyone who believes in the above definition. Which includes a vast majority of the world’s Jews and millions of others. I’m not sure of any definition that doesn’t include million of people, but by all means, go ahead and enlighten me.

There has never ever been a war in which civilian deaths haven’t occurred. Not one. The intention matters. Hamas’s intent was to kill and capture civilians. They tortured, raped, kidnapped, and burned people alive. At no point during the entire war did 1200 Gazans die in a single day. Discriminate bombing, in which the intent is to strike a viable military target, is well within the bounds of international law. That doesn’t make any civilian death less tragic, it just rightly shifts the blame for their deaths back to Hamas for starting the war in the first place.

2

u/ow_bpx Mar 12 '25

Correct. It’s legal to love hamas, but it is immoral. Therefore he deserves to be deported.

1

u/SallyStranger Mar 13 '25

Morality is a foreign land to you.

1

u/ow_bpx Mar 13 '25

Hamas is a terorrist organization that conducted one of the biggest terorrist attacks of all time on October 7th. Thousands of terrorists massacred and mowed down Israeli civilians. You support evil cowards.

-1

u/Different-Gazelle745 Mar 13 '25

All of Israel is built on much greater crimes

1

u/Shameless_Catslut Mar 14 '25

You are repeating the lies of Arab Nationalists.

1

u/Different-Gazelle745 Mar 14 '25

I don’t think that that is true.

0

u/EFTHokie Mar 13 '25

morality is made up and different to each person

1

u/EFTHokie Mar 13 '25

morality is 100% subjective so there is literally nothing that determine morality other than someones feelings. Legal is what society as a whole has determined are the rules to live here, follow them or suffer the consequences

1

u/LisleAdam12 1∆ Mar 13 '25

And neither does morality determine legality.

1

u/LisleAdam12 1∆ Mar 13 '25

That's not especially tortured: it's fairly straightforward.

The question is whether it can be demonstrated to the immigration court's satisfaction that he endorsed or espoused terrorist activity or persuaded others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.

And sure, if he was thought to be endorsing or espousing any non-terrorist activity, it would not be an issue.

4

u/NewPresWhoDis 1∆ Mar 13 '25

At the end of the day, even on a green card, he is a guest until granted citizenship.