So ridiculous to even have to have this conversation. The previous administration had no problem forcing censorship of totally peaceful people because their opinions didn't fit the narrative. But they also had no problem allowing and perhaps even encouraging totally violent actions in so called "mostly peaceful protests" and threats to Supreme Court justices.
So ridiculous to even have to have this conversation. The previous administration had no problem forcing censorship of totally peaceful people because their opinions didn't fit the narrative. But they also had no problem allowing and perhaps even encouraging totally violent actions in so called "mostly peaceful protests" and threats to Supreme Court justices.
Marco Rubio had similar thoughts when he took Margaret Brennan to the woodshed over this.
I get that people have different opinions about who is responsible for what in Gaza, and I understand that some people are anti-Israel for whatever reason. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their opinions.
But no one who is in the United States on the sufferance of the United States government has any business engaging in support for terrorism and terrorist organizations, which is what those violent demonstrations at Columbia University demonstrably were.
Anyone here on any sort of visa or green card who pulls a stunt like that needs to not be here. That's the rule Congress has made and the Constitution says Congress gets to make that rule.
This point is rock solid. It definitely highlights the shameless hypocrisy and immorality of these would-be censors in supporting free speech of those who are literally inciting violence.
The one thing I will point out is that those who have tried to censor and silence those on the political right are NOT supporting "free speech". That's the problem.
They are supporting terroristic violence. The evidence proves that in abundance.
No one should ever conflate the Columbia University demonstrations with any sort of "speech". Violence is not speech, and what transpired at Columbia (and at Harvard and at too many other college campuses around the country) was violence.
There is no Constitutional protection for terroristic violence.
So ridiculous to even have to have this conversation. The previous administration had no problem forcing censorship of totally peaceful people because their opinions didn't fit the narrative. But they also had no problem allowing and perhaps even encouraging totally violent actions in so called "mostly peaceful protests" and threats to Supreme Court justices.
Marco Rubio had similar thoughts when he took Margaret Brennan to the woodshed over this.
I get that people have different opinions about who is responsible for what in Gaza, and I understand that some people are anti-Israel for whatever reason. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their opinions.
But no one who is in the United States on the sufferance of the United States government has any business engaging in support for terrorism and terrorist organizations, which is what those violent demonstrations at Columbia University demonstrably were.
Anyone here on any sort of visa or green card who pulls a stunt like that needs to not be here. That's the rule Congress has made and the Constitution says Congress gets to make that rule.
This point is rock solid. It definitely highlights the shameless hypocrisy and immorality of these would-be censors in supporting free speech of those who are literally inciting violence.
The one thing I will point out is that those who have tried to censor and silence those on the political right are NOT supporting "free speech". That's the problem.
They are supporting terroristic violence. The evidence proves that in abundance.
No one should ever conflate the Columbia University demonstrations with any sort of "speech". Violence is not speech, and what transpired at Columbia (and at Harvard and at too many other college campuses around the country) was violence.
There is no Constitutional protection for terroristic violence.