I agree completely with your argument on free speech, whilst disagreeing completely with the speech of the protestors. That's how free speech is supposed to work- people should be free to voice an opinion and other people should be free to respond with a counter opinion.
What I will say is that the protestors are lucky that US law does not recognise the right of sovereign states to sue for defamation, as they are not individuals with reputational interests and as such have no standing to sue. If they did then the claim that Israel has been committing genocide would quickly be exposed as a false and baseless propaganda claim. War is horrible, but it is not genocide.
What makes it worse is we now have the receipts. One would have expected that support for the ceasefire would be universal. But this is not the case, although many on the Left welcomed the news. With many others, it's obvious that sympathy for innocent Gaza civilians was merely an excuse for a pathological and unreasoning desire to see the State of Israel harmed, discredited, or even dissolved.
I fully favor free speech - but do feel it has limits. I favor expressions both for and against any government action or policy but do not support calls for the nation’s destruction - or at a micro level any call for individual violence.
We are in a quandary today as failed immigration policies have allowed a ‘5th column’ to develop - especially in our institutions of higher learning - that rejects our values, culture, and government.
“FIRE’s plaintiffs John and Jane Doe have engaged in and planned to engage in speech about American foreign policy and Israel — including accusing Israel of committing “genocide” and using the slogan ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’ All of this speech is protected by the First Amendment, but because the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act enable the secretary of state to revoke a visa and render noncitizens deportable based on this exact type of speech, that speech is being chilled.”
Other parts of your argument may be correct, but this reasoning is circular.
You assert that they can’t deport non-citizens because the ability to deport non-citizens might affect what they say. Congress has made no law prohibiting free speech, just because you don’t like the fact that non-citizens who are here legally do not have the complete freedom to remain in the country.
Actions have consequences.
By your logic, the government has no right to decide who is allowed to enter and remain in the country, even if there is a national security risk.
You’d better figure out how to narrow your argument, or you will surely lose.
My wife became a citizen and swore allegiance to the Constitution, after passing a civics test. The meaning of citizenship included rights, privileges and responsibilities, based on the presumption that the members will share in the defense of that Constitution, and an implicit social compact that the longterm benefits outweigh the costs. There is a difference between citizens and visitors.
FIRE’s legal brief does not persuade WHY aliens who might be paid and trained agents of an evil ideological power (Islam, Communism) and here to support other violent activists SHOULD be free to roam the land.
Intellectuals enjoy free speech, the population tolerates it with an underlying cost-benefit analysis. Citizens with a vested interest in the peace and prosperity of the society appreciate the longterm benefits of free speech, mindful of the costs and victims of free speech. Obnoxious Visitors are a cost without a benefit.
The government is effectively censoring the foreigners but not the speech, in so far as citizens are still free to express it, perhaps mindful of the personal and social costs to the social fabric which the foreign enemy seeks to tear apart.
We either believe in the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways.
If the principle is that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, and we enumerate free expression as one of those rights, then one’s citizenship has no bearing on their possession of those rights or our belief that they should be protected.
As many in FIRE have said, it doesn’t reflect well on our supposed belief in those principles to say “Welcome to America, now shut up.”
“We either believe in the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways.”
Just because you repeat this phrase, doesn’t make it ‘true’, or inviolable.
You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater even though you have First Amendment Rights.
So your claim that the First Amendment is absolute and therefore trumps all is just incorrect.
Further, those non-citizens do indeed have the right not to be imprisoned for their speech. So their rights to free speech are in fact protected.
But actions have consequences, and in fact non-citizens do NOT have indisputable rights to remain in this country. Especially if they are a risk to national security or the foreign policy of the country.
The paramount importance of the First Amendment does not prevent the government from passing or enforcing laws about defending the country.
If you're so threatened by words and ideas that you think they pose a risk to national security or foreign policy, then you have less faith in our nation and its principles than I do. That's your prerogative, but I think you're wrong.
Actions have consequences, yes. But speech and action are not the same thing. If someone *acts* in a way that is in violation of our laws, they should be penalized. But mere expression is not the same thing, and it is well within the protection of our laws for people to voice ideas that are antagonistic towards and even anathema to our country and its ideals. That's what freedom looks like.
What you're arguing is also absurd on its face. If a U.S. citizen voiced those same ideas you'd like an immigrant deported for, you believe their speech should be protected. So that means you must believe that same speech somehow *doesn't* pose a risk to national security or foreign policy when voiced by a citizen? They're the same words and ideas. Do they magically gain some kind of destructive power they didn't previously have by simply being uttered by someone who wasn't born here? It makes no sense.
The paramount importance of the First Amendment prevents the government from acting like speech they dislike is tantamount to a national security threat. And if you actually value the principles the First Amendment is meant to preserve, then you should want the speech of even those who voice ideas you loathe to be protected. To do otherwise is to be selective in your principles.
The U.S. has in custody and is preparing to deport a pro-Hamas visitor , Sami Hamdi, who celebrated 10/7 and had a speaking tour at mosques in the U.S. How do you propose the country protect itself from a foreign funded campaign by thousands of trained propaganda visitors laying the groundwork for violence and a religious ideology that does not recognize sovereignty of the Constitution?
Mount a campaign similar to 1950’s anticommunism?
There is a direct link between Muslim immigration and violent antisemitism and harassment. Give me an example of the upside?
It's far from dogma, I assure you. We have laws that allow us to prosecute crimes, and when criminals are not citizens those laws allow us to deport them. I have no issue with that.
What I have an issue with is conflating material support for terrorism or crime—which has a very clear definition—and speech in support of certain ideas or groups. Not the same thing, and not treated the same legally (up until recently) for good reason.
Celebrating 10/7 is a right protected by the First Amendment, based on the principles the First Amendment is meant to enshrine. Touring mosques and speaking at them is also First Amendment protected activity. That speech is protected up to and until the point where it crosses into one of the very narrowly-defined examples of unprotected speech: such as true threats, targeted harassment, and incitement to imminent lawless action.
Unless that line is crossed, the speech is and should be protected.
Speech that you dislike, even if it is antisemitic in nature, is not in and of itself harassment, and you conflate those things at our own peril—because it won't be long before that conflation is used by others to silence and ship us away when we become ideologically or politically inconvenient to keep around.
I understand the impulse to try to eliminate and punish those who hold views you feel are anathema to civil society and life as we know it. But as always, the answer to speech you dislike is more speech. Criticize it, condemn it as forcefully as you can muster, levy your arguments against it and show why it's wrong, horrible, and harmful. That is all your right, and I back it with every fiber of my being. There are no shortcuts to defeating bad ideas with better ones; and the more you succumb to censorial tendencies, the more work you're making for yourself moving forward.
I agree completely with your argument on free speech, whilst disagreeing completely with the speech of the protestors. That's how free speech is supposed to work- people should be free to voice an opinion and other people should be free to respond with a counter opinion.
What I will say is that the protestors are lucky that US law does not recognise the right of sovereign states to sue for defamation, as they are not individuals with reputational interests and as such have no standing to sue. If they did then the claim that Israel has been committing genocide would quickly be exposed as a false and baseless propaganda claim. War is horrible, but it is not genocide.
What makes it worse is we now have the receipts. One would have expected that support for the ceasefire would be universal. But this is not the case, although many on the Left welcomed the news. With many others, it's obvious that sympathy for innocent Gaza civilians was merely an excuse for a pathological and unreasoning desire to see the State of Israel harmed, discredited, or even dissolved.
I fully favor free speech - but do feel it has limits. I favor expressions both for and against any government action or policy but do not support calls for the nation’s destruction - or at a micro level any call for individual violence.
We are in a quandary today as failed immigration policies have allowed a ‘5th column’ to develop - especially in our institutions of higher learning - that rejects our values, culture, and government.
https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech
“FIRE’s plaintiffs John and Jane Doe have engaged in and planned to engage in speech about American foreign policy and Israel — including accusing Israel of committing “genocide” and using the slogan ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.’ All of this speech is protected by the First Amendment, but because the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act enable the secretary of state to revoke a visa and render noncitizens deportable based on this exact type of speech, that speech is being chilled.”
Other parts of your argument may be correct, but this reasoning is circular.
You assert that they can’t deport non-citizens because the ability to deport non-citizens might affect what they say. Congress has made no law prohibiting free speech, just because you don’t like the fact that non-citizens who are here legally do not have the complete freedom to remain in the country.
Actions have consequences.
By your logic, the government has no right to decide who is allowed to enter and remain in the country, even if there is a national security risk.
You’d better figure out how to narrow your argument, or you will surely lose.
My wife became a citizen and swore allegiance to the Constitution, after passing a civics test. The meaning of citizenship included rights, privileges and responsibilities, based on the presumption that the members will share in the defense of that Constitution, and an implicit social compact that the longterm benefits outweigh the costs. There is a difference between citizens and visitors.
FIRE’s legal brief does not persuade WHY aliens who might be paid and trained agents of an evil ideological power (Islam, Communism) and here to support other violent activists SHOULD be free to roam the land.
Intellectuals enjoy free speech, the population tolerates it with an underlying cost-benefit analysis. Citizens with a vested interest in the peace and prosperity of the society appreciate the longterm benefits of free speech, mindful of the costs and victims of free speech. Obnoxious Visitors are a cost without a benefit.
The government is effectively censoring the foreigners but not the speech, in so far as citizens are still free to express it, perhaps mindful of the personal and social costs to the social fabric which the foreign enemy seeks to tear apart.
We either believe in the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways.
If the principle is that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, and we enumerate free expression as one of those rights, then one’s citizenship has no bearing on their possession of those rights or our belief that they should be protected.
As many in FIRE have said, it doesn’t reflect well on our supposed belief in those principles to say “Welcome to America, now shut up.”
“We either believe in the principles enshrined in the First Amendment, or we don’t. We can’t have it both ways.”
Just because you repeat this phrase, doesn’t make it ‘true’, or inviolable.
You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater even though you have First Amendment Rights.
So your claim that the First Amendment is absolute and therefore trumps all is just incorrect.
Further, those non-citizens do indeed have the right not to be imprisoned for their speech. So their rights to free speech are in fact protected.
But actions have consequences, and in fact non-citizens do NOT have indisputable rights to remain in this country. Especially if they are a risk to national security or the foreign policy of the country.
The paramount importance of the First Amendment does not prevent the government from passing or enforcing laws about defending the country.
Wrong again:
https://youtu.be/9dnHWG2-EJc?si=aWqJFPHXwnWaua9K
If you're so threatened by words and ideas that you think they pose a risk to national security or foreign policy, then you have less faith in our nation and its principles than I do. That's your prerogative, but I think you're wrong.
Actions have consequences, yes. But speech and action are not the same thing. If someone *acts* in a way that is in violation of our laws, they should be penalized. But mere expression is not the same thing, and it is well within the protection of our laws for people to voice ideas that are antagonistic towards and even anathema to our country and its ideals. That's what freedom looks like.
What you're arguing is also absurd on its face. If a U.S. citizen voiced those same ideas you'd like an immigrant deported for, you believe their speech should be protected. So that means you must believe that same speech somehow *doesn't* pose a risk to national security or foreign policy when voiced by a citizen? They're the same words and ideas. Do they magically gain some kind of destructive power they didn't previously have by simply being uttered by someone who wasn't born here? It makes no sense.
The paramount importance of the First Amendment prevents the government from acting like speech they dislike is tantamount to a national security threat. And if you actually value the principles the First Amendment is meant to preserve, then you should want the speech of even those who voice ideas you loathe to be protected. To do otherwise is to be selective in your principles.
The U.S. has in custody and is preparing to deport a pro-Hamas visitor , Sami Hamdi, who celebrated 10/7 and had a speaking tour at mosques in the U.S. How do you propose the country protect itself from a foreign funded campaign by thousands of trained propaganda visitors laying the groundwork for violence and a religious ideology that does not recognize sovereignty of the Constitution?
Mount a campaign similar to 1950’s anticommunism?
There is a direct link between Muslim immigration and violent antisemitism and harassment. Give me an example of the upside?
I appreciate your commitment to principle, but without proof or thorough response to the opposite side of the equation, is it dogma?
It's far from dogma, I assure you. We have laws that allow us to prosecute crimes, and when criminals are not citizens those laws allow us to deport them. I have no issue with that.
What I have an issue with is conflating material support for terrorism or crime—which has a very clear definition—and speech in support of certain ideas or groups. Not the same thing, and not treated the same legally (up until recently) for good reason.
Celebrating 10/7 is a right protected by the First Amendment, based on the principles the First Amendment is meant to enshrine. Touring mosques and speaking at them is also First Amendment protected activity. That speech is protected up to and until the point where it crosses into one of the very narrowly-defined examples of unprotected speech: such as true threats, targeted harassment, and incitement to imminent lawless action.
Unless that line is crossed, the speech is and should be protected.
Speech that you dislike, even if it is antisemitic in nature, is not in and of itself harassment, and you conflate those things at our own peril—because it won't be long before that conflation is used by others to silence and ship us away when we become ideologically or politically inconvenient to keep around.
https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech
I understand the impulse to try to eliminate and punish those who hold views you feel are anathema to civil society and life as we know it. But as always, the answer to speech you dislike is more speech. Criticize it, condemn it as forcefully as you can muster, levy your arguments against it and show why it's wrong, horrible, and harmful. That is all your right, and I back it with every fiber of my being. There are no shortcuts to defeating bad ideas with better ones; and the more you succumb to censorial tendencies, the more work you're making for yourself moving forward.
Agreed. I wrote something similar when it first started happening to our international students https://open.substack.com/pub/collegetowns/p/deporting-international-students