The recent detainment (coupled with threats of deportation) of Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, both in this country legally, has sparked debate about the applicability of the First Amendment’s dictum that free speech shall not be abridged. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech provides only for the ability to speak freely and to petition the government for redress if a person believes his or her right to free speech has been violated. It does not provide absolution for the consequence of free speech. As has been quoted numerous times in the past, “you have the freedom to yell, "fire" in a crowded theater, but if no fire exists, you bear the responsibility for the consequences” (any resulting damage, injury, or death).
That statement does not apply directly to the cases of Khalil and Ozturk, it’s simply a well-worn phrase that demonstrates that there are consequences to free speech. That’s a lesson a few members of the mainstream media have learned the hard way. Among other lawsuits:
ABC News recently agreed to pay $15 million to settle President Trump’s libel lawsuit that he filed in response to statements made by George Stephanopoulos.
Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle the company's claims of inaccurate reporting in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
Melania Trump was awarded a reported $2.9 million (terms were not released in court) and an apology from The Daily Mail for statements made alleging she, “provided services beyond simply modeling."
Also relevant, the First Amendment applies directly only to the federal government. And although case law has greatly expanded that applicability, it does not apply to speech made by individuals libeling or defaming others. Hence the recent tidal wave of private sector libel and defamation lawsuits.
The recent detainment and threats of deportation of people legally in this country unquestionably is a matter of concern. Deporting non-citizens for statements is a slippery slope. Classifying a statement as "inciting violence" is a judgment call- specifically, does a specific statement actually incite violence? Does inciting violence qualify as participating in violence? Obviously, the answers to those questions depend on individual circumstances. Although the actions taken against Khalil and Ozturk appear to be in complete compliance with existing laws, the case against Ozturk seems contrived.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio makes a valid point that if a person stated one of their purposes for entering the country was to incite violence, they would not be admitted. And by extension, the law indicates that such statements are valid causes for deportation.
Policies for denying immigrants entry to this country predate Rubio serving as Secretary of State by well over a century. The Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax on immigrants and provided the power to exclude “idiots, lunatics, convicts, and those likely to become a public charge.” Clearly, the 1882 Act was designed to prevent people who were deemed potential threats to public safety or likely to become a burden to public services from entering the country. Although the verbiage of the act would be considered politically incorrect in the 21st Century, (in spite of the fact that idiots and lunatics still exist) the concerns it addresses remain valid. And it would seem that valid reasons for denying a person entry to this country are equally valid for deporting such persons. (An aside- the Biden administration’s policy of welcoming illegal immigrants is clearly a violation of the 1882 immigration act).
Rubio has stated, “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa.
"If you lie to us and get a visa then enter the United States, and with that visa, participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa.”
The overriding issue is the determination of whether specific speech qualifies as a valid reason for the revocation of a foreign resident’s visa. It appears that Khalil’s detainment is a consequence of his actions, not his words. On the other hand, Ozturk’s detainment appears to be a consequence of her co-authorship of an op-ed, which frankly seems innocuous; it presents little more than typical liberal talking points relating to Israeli military actions. Specifically, the op-ed states, “the collective voice of the student body is calling for are for the University to end its complicity with Israel insofar as it is oppressing the Palestinian people and denying their right to self-determination — a right that is guaranteed by international law.”
If the government is basing Ozturk’s detainment strictly on the contents of this op-ed, it is making a banzai charge down the aforementioned slippery slope. The State Department has the full authority to revoke visas; given the available facts, whether it should do so in this case is questionable.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
I too am watching this with caution. A Korean woman, who has some type of residency in the US for decades, has apparently been snatched up as well for her speech. However, the Fire in a theater analogy is not the correct standard. It was enunciated during the prosecution of a pacifist and a socialist handing out leaflets against the draft in WWI. His conviction was upheld by Justice Holmes. So in fact it was an anti-free speech decision. The case was later overturned. The standard is now that speech which supports law-breaking or violence is protected unless its purpose is to incite immediate criminal action or violence and it is likely to do so. While I despise the entities such as the ACLU taking up the cause when they were not only silent during the Covid War, but participants in it, Free Speech is our crowning jewel to be protected. We cannot forget that the Patriot Act, which was promised to swing out only outwards, was soon swung inwards.
I find it curious how many outlets can directly quote Rubio saying "not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements" and then immediately claim that a deportation order IS "just because" of an op-ed. If you're calling him a liar at least do it openly, but standard reading comprehension suggests that he's directly refuting the claim that's all there is to it.
I haven't seen a single time the administration has claimed the order was due to the op-ed at all, much less "just" because of the op-ed, rather than involvement (however tenuous) with illegal activities in support of a designated terrorist organization. AFAICT, the claim that it has anything at all to do with an op-ed originated solely from the person being ordered deported, not from our government. But hey, the news moves fast these days, has ANYONE seen or heard our government actually claim that the op-ed is the only reason (or even one of the reasons) for this deportation?
IF TRUE, that would indeed be concerning. So why doesn't the press seem at all interested in investigating whether it is in fact true or not?