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.
What I find funny in this free speech matter is what the so called free speech is about. No one says anything when someone supporting ISIS is arrested. However, Hamas another terrorist organization being given support and sympathy is viewed differently. If people understood the groups that say death to America and Israel, really mean that when they say it. Where does the protection come in? There are even elected leaders of congress that give sympathy to terrorist organizations with no consequences. That is how far we have gone from what is truly being protected in the country.
For four years, the Biden administration actively ignored or protected illegal immigrants, even those that were known criminals. The aftermath of that is a cabal of activist judges who are legislating from the bench against the deportation of known criminals. They are joined by members of congress who demonstrate more sympathy for foreign criminals than they do for the citizens who are victims of those criminals. Democrats have demonstrably shown their disregard for the consequences of their policies.
I also think that the free speech argument supporting terrorist is part of the movement of attempting to integrate that into societal norms. That is how they work from within. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. That as the Constitution says is the whole issue with this being a free speech issue. Hamas is an enemy of America and people. Therefore, technically these people here on a green card are committing treason. It is so simple and so many giving these people aid and comfort as well. ACLU, judges, etc.
It's worse than that when members of congress do the same thing. I wrote my congressman when this event to place and of course nothing happened to her. I took an oath to the Constitution like she did. I consider it treason her doing this.
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.
Hence the article's title including the words, "slippery slope". The shouting of fire in a theater was not meant to establish a standard other than to demonstrate that there are consequences to free speech. Those consequences differ depending on the circumstances, but they do exist.
I totally get the point you made and agree. But knowing the facts of the decision where the analogy comes from, it is like the old fingernails on a chalkboard. Biden used it when stating the Second Amendment needs to be curtailed just like speech in the 'fire in a theater.'
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?
One of the points of my article was that it was concerning if the op-ed by Ozturk was the sole reason she was detained and threatened with deportation. I hope the government has other information that it has not yet released. My read of the op-ed is that it expresses opinions and does not call for any type of violent actions and is insufficient to justify deportation. As for the press not seeming interested in investigating, if you're referring to the mainstream media, my take would be they have other information that would be counter to their desired narrative. But that's just a guess.
That's pretty much it. This is likely the best of them so far, but your article is probably at least the half dozenth in a row I've read recently that brings up the "just because of the op-ed" talking point and expresses serious concern, but almost none sources that claim except with circular reporting (which seems important regarding credibility), most don't characterize it as "allegedly" (which seems to violate journalistic standards for repeating an unproven claim), and most didn't even do the basic minimum of journalism by reaching out for a comment from the administration. So I'm frustrated that this keeps getting repeated as if it is a proven fact, when as far as I can tell even after reading so many articles on the subject, it's currently an unsubstantiated guess by the detained person, and has been rejected rather than confirmed by the administration.
So yes, I'd like to see somebody, anybody, in the press (mainstream or otherwise) spell out the known facts as such and investigate the known gaps, when reporting on this, before we jump to treating the administration as presumptively guilty and wringing our hands about the implications and second order effects of something we haven't yet confirmed even happened. Is that something you can do? IDK. I just have more trust in this outlet than most others and figure here's as good or better a place to ask as any. If there isn't more that you can do, don't worry about it. I'm really not trying to take my frustrations out on you personally, sorry if it came across that way.
No problem. Unfortunately, I don't have the horsepower to get a meaningful response from anyone in the state department. I'd like to hear their position as well. I'll do some additional checking and see what I can find.
What I find funny in this free speech matter is what the so called free speech is about. No one says anything when someone supporting ISIS is arrested. However, Hamas another terrorist organization being given support and sympathy is viewed differently. If people understood the groups that say death to America and Israel, really mean that when they say it. Where does the protection come in? There are even elected leaders of congress that give sympathy to terrorist organizations with no consequences. That is how far we have gone from what is truly being protected in the country.
For four years, the Biden administration actively ignored or protected illegal immigrants, even those that were known criminals. The aftermath of that is a cabal of activist judges who are legislating from the bench against the deportation of known criminals. They are joined by members of congress who demonstrate more sympathy for foreign criminals than they do for the citizens who are victims of those criminals. Democrats have demonstrably shown their disregard for the consequences of their policies.
I also think that the free speech argument supporting terrorist is part of the movement of attempting to integrate that into societal norms. That is how they work from within. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. That as the Constitution says is the whole issue with this being a free speech issue. Hamas is an enemy of America and people. Therefore, technically these people here on a green card are committing treason. It is so simple and so many giving these people aid and comfort as well. ACLU, judges, etc.
Apparently in Liberalland foreign residents who support the enemies of the United States are just poor immigrants who mean no harm.
It's worse than that when members of congress do the same thing. I wrote my congressman when this event to place and of course nothing happened to her. I took an oath to the Constitution like she did. I consider it treason her doing this.
https://www.thefp.com/p/rashida-tlaib-conference-terrorist-group-ties
Not surprising that no action was taken.
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.
Hence the article's title including the words, "slippery slope". The shouting of fire in a theater was not meant to establish a standard other than to demonstrate that there are consequences to free speech. Those consequences differ depending on the circumstances, but they do exist.
I totally get the point you made and agree. But knowing the facts of the decision where the analogy comes from, it is like the old fingernails on a chalkboard. Biden used it when stating the Second Amendment needs to be curtailed just like speech in the 'fire in a theater.'
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?
One of the points of my article was that it was concerning if the op-ed by Ozturk was the sole reason she was detained and threatened with deportation. I hope the government has other information that it has not yet released. My read of the op-ed is that it expresses opinions and does not call for any type of violent actions and is insufficient to justify deportation. As for the press not seeming interested in investigating, if you're referring to the mainstream media, my take would be they have other information that would be counter to their desired narrative. But that's just a guess.
That's pretty much it. This is likely the best of them so far, but your article is probably at least the half dozenth in a row I've read recently that brings up the "just because of the op-ed" talking point and expresses serious concern, but almost none sources that claim except with circular reporting (which seems important regarding credibility), most don't characterize it as "allegedly" (which seems to violate journalistic standards for repeating an unproven claim), and most didn't even do the basic minimum of journalism by reaching out for a comment from the administration. So I'm frustrated that this keeps getting repeated as if it is a proven fact, when as far as I can tell even after reading so many articles on the subject, it's currently an unsubstantiated guess by the detained person, and has been rejected rather than confirmed by the administration.
So yes, I'd like to see somebody, anybody, in the press (mainstream or otherwise) spell out the known facts as such and investigate the known gaps, when reporting on this, before we jump to treating the administration as presumptively guilty and wringing our hands about the implications and second order effects of something we haven't yet confirmed even happened. Is that something you can do? IDK. I just have more trust in this outlet than most others and figure here's as good or better a place to ask as any. If there isn't more that you can do, don't worry about it. I'm really not trying to take my frustrations out on you personally, sorry if it came across that way.
No problem. Unfortunately, I don't have the horsepower to get a meaningful response from anyone in the state department. I'd like to hear their position as well. I'll do some additional checking and see what I can find.