Right? This seems like one of those issues where there is a divergence between correct action when considering the particulars versus the principles. And the impassioned debates here are ok and don’t need to make the opposing Racket readers mortal enemies. Good people disagree all the time.
The more I read about this character the more I despise everything about him. He seems like a deranged maniac from abroad who has come here to damage Americans and our social cohesion. He should never have been given a visa or residence. He’s a net negative for our country. Every cell in my body says deport his ass. That’s the particulars.
The principles are free speech is tolerated even from those whose ideas we hate. It’s the Skokie Klan march reimagined for the 21st century. And the important distinction with his immigration status seems like a technicality that can be seized upon to dismiss the important free speech principle. I honestly don’t know what is the ethically right move and how the particulars versus the principles argument gets resolved.
I’m glad Matt has the guts to advocate for his free speech principles even when it provokes a backlash and undoubtedly will cost him some paid subscribers, even if I’m not sure he has parsed the principles versus particulars matter correctly.
For what it is worth, while I agree that both the neo-Nazis in Skokie and the Hamas Lite protestors have the right to vent their nasty viewpoints, there is a major difference. The Columbia protests were violent and included a multitude of illegal acts while the Nazis won their case and then declined to march. Obviously no march, no illegalities.
And yet, if Khalil was not inciting or participating in the violence, can we hold him accountable for it (--even if we suspect that he felt the violence was justified and was satisfied by it)?
That's a real question. My initial thought is that we should hold immigrants to a very high standard, simply because western civilization is more fragile than we usually realize, and there are cultural differences among nations that must be accounted for. We would clearly not want to ensure that people who hate our country are nevertheless welcome to move here because "all humans are welcome to move here."
But, I'm not seeing solid evidence that Khalil "hates our country," even if some of his crap enrages me. I can GUESS that he hates us, or suspect it, and certainly wonder about it; but I definitely don't know it, and I'd still need to see sources that show that he was clearly involved in whatever protest activities got out of hand before forming a real opinion.
I think I have posted about this but probably broken into too many pieces to be clear so I will try to compile it in one place
If it is just "speech", he could stay but that term is more than a little vague. In my opinion, handing out a flyer that says "I do not believe Hamas should be designated as a terrorist group, please help me to persuade people to write to their representatives to get this changed" is protected, citizen or not. If the flyer says, "I agree with the objectives of Hamas as exhibited through word and deed, please help me carry out their important work.", you have crossed over into actively supporting a terrorist group and there should be consequences.
There are certainly room for gray areas in between that we could debate for days. However, the beauty of a representative democracy is that we have selected people to have that debate for us. In the case of people who are guests in this country, the laws have made it clear that there is a lower bar for imposing consequences on them than on citizens. Moreover, as there will certainly be gray areas that cannot be anticipated when writing laws and regulations, the Secretary of State will have discretion on these matters.
I still consider it a possibility that when the dust has settled, Khalil may still be able to reside here. However, based on the strong indication that he took actions that were illegal (perhaps not directly but by planning and facilitating) and that his documented speech seems to fall (at least) into that gray area where Rubio will make the decision, I consider it far more likely that he will be deported and within the letter and spirit of the law.
There is an interesting article (I believe cited elsewhere in this thread) with a title something like "15 Reasons Khalil Mahmoud Should be Deported". Personally, I disagree with somewhere around half and am iffy on several more but it provides a pretty good outline of the issues at hand.
I'll be looking for your "strong indication" on illegal activity in the primary source updates of this timeline. (I think it's going to be updated as new info comes in?) Thanks for your thoughts--
If If If-- Lets wait and see. There are several videos out there that could be construed as incitement-- but I do not know what the US govt definition of that is in regard to immigration issues. So I will wait.
This reminds me of when Alex Jones was banned from Twitter in 2018. They always start with someone who is easy to dislike, but once they start, they don't stop. The Patriot Act wasn't supposed to apply to American citizens, until suddenly we had the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. Does anyone really believe that the need to shut down student protests is so great that the government needs sweeping new powers?
You don't have all the information yet, right? Who knows if the government has receipts, phone records, informants, or whatever. Trump has gotten all the Democrats on record as supporting him. Genius.
Yes. A lot of people see defending freedom of speech as just doing an unearned favor to the accused (Khalil). But it's more about protecting the concept, as it will be applied to others including ourselves in the future. That is, we defend even free speech which we detest, and expect similar protections for our own speech. Put another way, it's not just speaking (or expression), it's also about what we are free to hear (even from an external source). So banning US citizens from listening to Polish or Chinese or Paraquan sources which the government doesn't like would be bad, even tho those sources are not US citizens or permament residents.
Some in the comments here are saying that there are crimes which Khalil has committed, which are the real issue, not how he has used free speech. That case needs to be made more fully, in a context where both sides get to present evidence (like a court proceeding).
I am not sympathetic to Khalil at all, but I would like to see a better case made for what exactly he in particular stands accused of doing.
Right? This seems like one of those issues where there is a divergence between correct action when considering the particulars versus the principles. And the impassioned debates here are ok and don’t need to make the opposing Racket readers mortal enemies. Good people disagree all the time.
The more I read about this character the more I despise everything about him. He seems like a deranged maniac from abroad who has come here to damage Americans and our social cohesion. He should never have been given a visa or residence. He’s a net negative for our country. Every cell in my body says deport his ass. That’s the particulars.
The principles are free speech is tolerated even from those whose ideas we hate. It’s the Skokie Klan march reimagined for the 21st century. And the important distinction with his immigration status seems like a technicality that can be seized upon to dismiss the important free speech principle. I honestly don’t know what is the ethically right move and how the particulars versus the principles argument gets resolved.
I’m glad Matt has the guts to advocate for his free speech principles even when it provokes a backlash and undoubtedly will cost him some paid subscribers, even if I’m not sure he has parsed the principles versus particulars matter correctly.
For what it is worth, while I agree that both the neo-Nazis in Skokie and the Hamas Lite protestors have the right to vent their nasty viewpoints, there is a major difference. The Columbia protests were violent and included a multitude of illegal acts while the Nazis won their case and then declined to march. Obviously no march, no illegalities.
And yet, if Khalil was not inciting or participating in the violence, can we hold him accountable for it (--even if we suspect that he felt the violence was justified and was satisfied by it)?
That's a real question. My initial thought is that we should hold immigrants to a very high standard, simply because western civilization is more fragile than we usually realize, and there are cultural differences among nations that must be accounted for. We would clearly not want to ensure that people who hate our country are nevertheless welcome to move here because "all humans are welcome to move here."
But, I'm not seeing solid evidence that Khalil "hates our country," even if some of his crap enrages me. I can GUESS that he hates us, or suspect it, and certainly wonder about it; but I definitely don't know it, and I'd still need to see sources that show that he was clearly involved in whatever protest activities got out of hand before forming a real opinion.
I think I have posted about this but probably broken into too many pieces to be clear so I will try to compile it in one place
If it is just "speech", he could stay but that term is more than a little vague. In my opinion, handing out a flyer that says "I do not believe Hamas should be designated as a terrorist group, please help me to persuade people to write to their representatives to get this changed" is protected, citizen or not. If the flyer says, "I agree with the objectives of Hamas as exhibited through word and deed, please help me carry out their important work.", you have crossed over into actively supporting a terrorist group and there should be consequences.
There are certainly room for gray areas in between that we could debate for days. However, the beauty of a representative democracy is that we have selected people to have that debate for us. In the case of people who are guests in this country, the laws have made it clear that there is a lower bar for imposing consequences on them than on citizens. Moreover, as there will certainly be gray areas that cannot be anticipated when writing laws and regulations, the Secretary of State will have discretion on these matters.
I still consider it a possibility that when the dust has settled, Khalil may still be able to reside here. However, based on the strong indication that he took actions that were illegal (perhaps not directly but by planning and facilitating) and that his documented speech seems to fall (at least) into that gray area where Rubio will make the decision, I consider it far more likely that he will be deported and within the letter and spirit of the law.
There is an interesting article (I believe cited elsewhere in this thread) with a title something like "15 Reasons Khalil Mahmoud Should be Deported". Personally, I disagree with somewhere around half and am iffy on several more but it provides a pretty good outline of the issues at hand.
I'll be looking for your "strong indication" on illegal activity in the primary source updates of this timeline. (I think it's going to be updated as new info comes in?) Thanks for your thoughts--
If If If-- Lets wait and see. There are several videos out there that could be construed as incitement-- but I do not know what the US govt definition of that is in regard to immigration issues. So I will wait.
Agreed about the If's and the waiting!
This reminds me of when Alex Jones was banned from Twitter in 2018. They always start with someone who is easy to dislike, but once they start, they don't stop. The Patriot Act wasn't supposed to apply to American citizens, until suddenly we had the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. Does anyone really believe that the need to shut down student protests is so great that the government needs sweeping new powers?
You don't have all the information yet, right? Who knows if the government has receipts, phone records, informants, or whatever. Trump has gotten all the Democrats on record as supporting him. Genius.
Yes. A lot of people see defending freedom of speech as just doing an unearned favor to the accused (Khalil). But it's more about protecting the concept, as it will be applied to others including ourselves in the future. That is, we defend even free speech which we detest, and expect similar protections for our own speech. Put another way, it's not just speaking (or expression), it's also about what we are free to hear (even from an external source). So banning US citizens from listening to Polish or Chinese or Paraquan sources which the government doesn't like would be bad, even tho those sources are not US citizens or permament residents.
Some in the comments here are saying that there are crimes which Khalil has committed, which are the real issue, not how he has used free speech. That case needs to be made more fully, in a context where both sides get to present evidence (like a court proceeding).
See my comment with links.