I hear you that violence is not speech. But is this much different than the denial of due process and inhumane treatment of nonviolent J6 protestors, rationalized because there was also, true, authentic, footage of (some) of the J6ers, including a few non-FBI provocateurs, doing things that did deserve jail time, like breaking windows and assaulting police officers?
The left used the violence on J6 to demonize everyone there, and everything they believe in.
I know there are lots of unhinged folks on the far left. That chant about burn Tel Aviv and we love Hamas and their rockets too is appalling (as is the rationalization by Israel that because Muslims have been violent towards Jews, Isreal is entitled to continue a cycle of violence until it expands as big as it wants to and exterminates anyone it wants to.)
Was Khalil chanting that? Did he write the chant? Or was he not there?
Most / everyone who came to DC on J6 to support Trump believed in the same thing - the election was stolen, Trump is the rightful president. Some with those beliefs assaulted cops, and (while they hated cops until the minute before), that was used by the left to condemn everyone who was at J6.
OK, Khalil is more than a protestor, he was a liaison, an organizer (but did he direct the protests to become violent?). Glenn Greenwald says he was a liaison because he was trusted by various sides, and has not shown disrespect towards Jewish students.
Yes Jewish students at Columbia were scared - and if Khalil was personally threatening them, then I agree, this is beyond speech and he should go. Congresspeople in the Capitol on J6 were scared, but can that be blamed on anyone besides the people who threatened violence and went inside the building, not to walk around like tourists through open doors, but to supposedly find and hurt the people inside?
But even if it can be honestly said - and maybe it can - that Khalil was inciting violence / supportive of Hamas, tactics and all, not just supportive of bringing attention to the horrific murders of Palestinians with American paid for bombs ... even if in his case he should be deported ...
**The larger issue is the slippery slope and vague language - and letting groups with agendas and AI give the administration lists of names to target. What if that was the other way around? What if we were now in the hell of President Harris, and pharma connected groups gave lists of foreign born students organizing against vaccine mandates? Perhaps some of their protests turned violent, with different students so angry that they were forced to play heart disease/cancer/autoimmune roulette, or angry their recently vax'd partner just died, and broke some windows or refused to leave the protest?
As of now, I agree with Matt Taibbi on this .. both what he says here, and the title of his article, "If Trump Blows it on Speech, the World is Screwed."
From Taibbi -
"Forget Khalil. He’s not the issue. The problem is Trump officials pledging to throw masses of people out of the country for offenses not yet committed and on vague pretexts like being “aligned with Hamas.” As Coward put it (see accompanying interview), “What does that mean?” Similarly, what does it mean to be a “Hamas sympathizer,” and what constitutes “aiding and abetting violations [of] immigration laws,” a standard Trump just decided to employ to deny relief to some federal student loan holders?
This use of vague language mixed with speech-code concepts is similar to the techniques employed by the politicians Trump and Vance ran against or criticized last year, like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, Britain’s Keir Starmer or the censorship zealots at the Barack Obama-created Global Engagement Center. The cultural targets are different, but both sides would be embarrassed to realize how nearly identical their arguments justifying their crackdowns are.
Take the new administration’s “Catch-and-Deport” program, which among other things will use AI to analyze social media accounts in a “whole of government” effort to locate and kick out aliens for Minority Report violations, i.e. because they “intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”
Weren’t conservatives outraged last August when Starmer pledged to use “shared intelligence” and “facial recognition technology” to capture alleged speech criminals “before they even board a train”? Didn’t Elon Musk ask, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” And if Trump planned on turning around and immediately deploying the State Department and the DHS to use computerized scanning of social media as a punishment mechanism, why were we supposed to care about State Department funded blacklists, the DHS’s moronic Disinformation Governance Board, or suppression of figures like Bhattacharya or Tucker Carlson. . ."
The J6 protestors were charged with crimes that did not occur. There was no sedition, there was no insurrection.
There was a riot and there was violence. Breaking into the Capitol building was riotous behavior and it was violence.
The free speech aspects of J6 ended the moment the protestors violently broke into the Capitol building—which they unquestionably did do. Even so, the nature of that riot was far short of sedition or insurrection, and even the FBI conceded that as no one was ever charged with insurrection (the FBI never even charged anyone with rioting).
In Khalil’s case, the question of criminality need not enter into the discussion. He participated in activities which were clearly and unequivocally in support of Hamas, a known terrorist group. The statements made during the demonstrations are explicit support for Hamas. Khalil unquestionably participated in the demonstrations and involved himself with the groups who ere demonstrating in support of Hamas (not “Palestinians”, but Hamas).
A non-citizen does not have the luxury of such miscreant behavior if he wishes to remain in this country.
A Green Card is a privilege, not a right.
A visa is a privilege, not a right.
Every non-citizen who is in this country legally is so at the sufferance of the United States government. 8 USC §1182(a)(3) specifies that said sufferance ends when a person shows support for a terrorist group—which includes endorsing or espousing such a group, and the Columbia University protests are unequivocally an endorsement of Hamas.
Khalil knew the protests were in violation of the conditions of a visa. He chose to get involved in them anyway.
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.
When I was growing up, virtually everyone understood that you have a right to speak your mind, but if you threaten or harass someone you could be charged with “verbal assault”. That’s a crime, so don’t do that! You didn’t have to have a barroom brawl, just threatening a person with physical harm was an assault. Why don’t people know this anymore? I’m blaming the same school system that no longer teaches how our government functions (“Civics”), or the responsibilities that come with being a U.S. citizen.
What is particularly disgusting about the pro-Hamas protests is the psychopathic fetishizing of Hamas.
There is no excusing, rationalizing, nor legitimizing the orgy of rape and murder Hamas unleashed on October 7th, 2023. None.
There is no excusing Hamas’ very explicit and admitted strategy of using the Arabs in Gaza as human shields, positioning women and children in and around their combatants and supplies specifically to maximize the casualties from the inevitable Israeli retaliations.
There is no denying that Hamas stands guilty of double genocide—they want to exterminate the Israeli population and they mean to kill every Arab in Gaza along the way.
Yet people defend Hamas and will not speak ill of their barbarism.
When the Arabs in Gaza understand that Hamas only wants death and not peace, when the Arabs in Gaza disavow and distance themselves from Hamas, only then will the Arabs in Gaza have any chance for peace.
So long as the Arabs in Gaza remain aligned with Hamas, the only peace they can ever have is the peace of the grave.
So true! I have been mystified by any support for Hamas, so much so that I’ve concluded that the protests in their favor must be paid protesters, funded by some USAID-backed anti-America subversive group. That makes me a “conspiracy theorist”, but I can’t come up with any rational reason why anyone would support such barbarism and cruelty. The college students who have rallied in favor of Hamas are young, duped idiots who will probably have some serious levels of remorse later in life for what they did.
This is an excellent survey of what is and is not protected under the First Amendment
Thanks!
I hear you that violence is not speech. But is this much different than the denial of due process and inhumane treatment of nonviolent J6 protestors, rationalized because there was also, true, authentic, footage of (some) of the J6ers, including a few non-FBI provocateurs, doing things that did deserve jail time, like breaking windows and assaulting police officers?
The left used the violence on J6 to demonize everyone there, and everything they believe in.
I know there are lots of unhinged folks on the far left. That chant about burn Tel Aviv and we love Hamas and their rockets too is appalling (as is the rationalization by Israel that because Muslims have been violent towards Jews, Isreal is entitled to continue a cycle of violence until it expands as big as it wants to and exterminates anyone it wants to.)
Was Khalil chanting that? Did he write the chant? Or was he not there?
Most / everyone who came to DC on J6 to support Trump believed in the same thing - the election was stolen, Trump is the rightful president. Some with those beliefs assaulted cops, and (while they hated cops until the minute before), that was used by the left to condemn everyone who was at J6.
OK, Khalil is more than a protestor, he was a liaison, an organizer (but did he direct the protests to become violent?). Glenn Greenwald says he was a liaison because he was trusted by various sides, and has not shown disrespect towards Jewish students.
Yes Jewish students at Columbia were scared - and if Khalil was personally threatening them, then I agree, this is beyond speech and he should go. Congresspeople in the Capitol on J6 were scared, but can that be blamed on anyone besides the people who threatened violence and went inside the building, not to walk around like tourists through open doors, but to supposedly find and hurt the people inside?
But even if it can be honestly said - and maybe it can - that Khalil was inciting violence / supportive of Hamas, tactics and all, not just supportive of bringing attention to the horrific murders of Palestinians with American paid for bombs ... even if in his case he should be deported ...
**The larger issue is the slippery slope and vague language - and letting groups with agendas and AI give the administration lists of names to target. What if that was the other way around? What if we were now in the hell of President Harris, and pharma connected groups gave lists of foreign born students organizing against vaccine mandates? Perhaps some of their protests turned violent, with different students so angry that they were forced to play heart disease/cancer/autoimmune roulette, or angry their recently vax'd partner just died, and broke some windows or refused to leave the protest?
As of now, I agree with Matt Taibbi on this .. both what he says here, and the title of his article, "If Trump Blows it on Speech, the World is Screwed."
From Taibbi -
"Forget Khalil. He’s not the issue. The problem is Trump officials pledging to throw masses of people out of the country for offenses not yet committed and on vague pretexts like being “aligned with Hamas.” As Coward put it (see accompanying interview), “What does that mean?” Similarly, what does it mean to be a “Hamas sympathizer,” and what constitutes “aiding and abetting violations [of] immigration laws,” a standard Trump just decided to employ to deny relief to some federal student loan holders?
This use of vague language mixed with speech-code concepts is similar to the techniques employed by the politicians Trump and Vance ran against or criticized last year, like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, Britain’s Keir Starmer or the censorship zealots at the Barack Obama-created Global Engagement Center. The cultural targets are different, but both sides would be embarrassed to realize how nearly identical their arguments justifying their crackdowns are.
Take the new administration’s “Catch-and-Deport” program, which among other things will use AI to analyze social media accounts in a “whole of government” effort to locate and kick out aliens for Minority Report violations, i.e. because they “intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”
Weren’t conservatives outraged last August when Starmer pledged to use “shared intelligence” and “facial recognition technology” to capture alleged speech criminals “before they even board a train”? Didn’t Elon Musk ask, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” And if Trump planned on turning around and immediately deploying the State Department and the DHS to use computerized scanning of social media as a punishment mechanism, why were we supposed to care about State Department funded blacklists, the DHS’s moronic Disinformation Governance Board, or suppression of figures like Bhattacharya or Tucker Carlson. . ."
https://www.racket.news/p/if-trump-blows-it-on-speech-the-world
Megyn Kelly / Glenn Greenwald debate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owl_j2u78jw
Yes, it is different.
The J6 protestors were charged with crimes that did not occur. There was no sedition, there was no insurrection.
There was a riot and there was violence. Breaking into the Capitol building was riotous behavior and it was violence.
The free speech aspects of J6 ended the moment the protestors violently broke into the Capitol building—which they unquestionably did do. Even so, the nature of that riot was far short of sedition or insurrection, and even the FBI conceded that as no one was ever charged with insurrection (the FBI never even charged anyone with rioting).
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/is-trump-an-insurrectionist
In Khalil’s case, the question of criminality need not enter into the discussion. He participated in activities which were clearly and unequivocally in support of Hamas, a known terrorist group. The statements made during the demonstrations are explicit support for Hamas. Khalil unquestionably participated in the demonstrations and involved himself with the groups who ere demonstrating in support of Hamas (not “Palestinians”, but Hamas).
A non-citizen does not have the luxury of such miscreant behavior if he wishes to remain in this country.
A Green Card is a privilege, not a right.
A visa is a privilege, not a right.
Every non-citizen who is in this country legally is so at the sufferance of the United States government. 8 USC §1182(a)(3) specifies that said sufferance ends when a person shows support for a terrorist group—which includes endorsing or espousing such a group, and the Columbia University protests are unequivocally an endorsement of Hamas.
Khalil knew the protests were in violation of the conditions of a visa. He chose to get involved in them anyway.
He chose badly.
Time for him to leave.
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.
Exactly right, Peter, and exquisitely stated!
When I was growing up, virtually everyone understood that you have a right to speak your mind, but if you threaten or harass someone you could be charged with “verbal assault”. That’s a crime, so don’t do that! You didn’t have to have a barroom brawl, just threatening a person with physical harm was an assault. Why don’t people know this anymore? I’m blaming the same school system that no longer teaches how our government functions (“Civics”), or the responsibilities that come with being a U.S. citizen.
What is particularly disgusting about the pro-Hamas protests is the psychopathic fetishizing of Hamas.
There is no excusing, rationalizing, nor legitimizing the orgy of rape and murder Hamas unleashed on October 7th, 2023. None.
There is no excusing Hamas’ very explicit and admitted strategy of using the Arabs in Gaza as human shields, positioning women and children in and around their combatants and supplies specifically to maximize the casualties from the inevitable Israeli retaliations.
There is no denying that Hamas stands guilty of double genocide—they want to exterminate the Israeli population and they mean to kill every Arab in Gaza along the way.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/hamas-must-go
Yet people defend Hamas and will not speak ill of their barbarism.
When the Arabs in Gaza understand that Hamas only wants death and not peace, when the Arabs in Gaza disavow and distance themselves from Hamas, only then will the Arabs in Gaza have any chance for peace.
So long as the Arabs in Gaza remain aligned with Hamas, the only peace they can ever have is the peace of the grave.
So true! I have been mystified by any support for Hamas, so much so that I’ve concluded that the protests in their favor must be paid protesters, funded by some USAID-backed anti-America subversive group. That makes me a “conspiracy theorist”, but I can’t come up with any rational reason why anyone would support such barbarism and cruelty. The college students who have rallied in favor of Hamas are young, duped idiots who will probably have some serious levels of remorse later in life for what they did.