If the case is about his speech alone, no matter how noxious, he shouldn’t be deported.
However, let’s square a logical inconsistency in Matt’s (and others’) defense of him. He wasn’t just speaking. He was a SPOKESPERSON for an entire movement that was conducting illegal activity who yet somehow wasn’t involved in any of these actions? As…
If the case is about his speech alone, no matter how noxious, he shouldn’t be deported.
However, let’s square a logical inconsistency in Matt’s (and others’) defense of him. He wasn’t just speaking. He was a SPOKESPERSON for an entire movement that was conducting illegal activity who yet somehow wasn’t involved in any of these actions? As someone who got a taste of the behind the scenes of campus protest as an undergraduate, let me tell you: there is no way someone becomes a spokesperson for a protest movement without being intimately involved in the planning and execution of that movement’s actions. That he presumed to speak on their behalf suggests some degree of coordination with them if not control.
This is what we need to have aired to the public to assuage those (like me) who agree with Matt IF it’s a speech issue alone but disagree if it involves coordination and control of illegal protest. Was Khalil involved in any of these illegal activities behind the scenes? Release the evidence.
Exactly. What do his defenders think? Did he just coincidentally show up at opportune moments and exert his 1A rights without knowledge of any of the illegal protester activities? BS.
Exactly. But even if it's about free speech alone, you can argue 1. he doesn't have the same rights as citizens and 2 His speech (and documents positions) are inciting violence and probably did. He went to more than one university to do this, so it wasn't organic. I don't think a non-citizen has the free speech rights to come here and talk about taking down America. Don't think so. But yes.
Sure, but I am trying to argue from the maximalist civil liberties position, to persuade the ardent civil libertarians like Matt (and myself) that there is the possibility this is justified if we see evidence of behind the scenes coordination or control of illegal actions at Columbia.
What I take away from several of your comments here is that "there is a possibility that [the deportation] is justified", rather than "we commenters know enough to decide whether his deportation is justified or not". I appreciate that distinction.
I would prefer that the evidence for and against be presented in a functional court proceedings, in which the case against him is not based on prohibited speech, but criminal collusion or a related charge. If convicted after due process, deport. If not, then even if we strongly disagree with what he says (and I do), the first amendment should apply (the SCOTUS says it applies to legal permanent residents as well as citizens).
I'm somewhat dismayed by people who believe he should be summarily deported based on fragments of selectively presented assertion, without a full hearing of both sides. I see more and more progressives wanting to punish people "just because we all know they are evil", without due process or respect for free speech. I don't want to see both sides doing it.
If the case is about his speech alone, no matter how noxious, he shouldn’t be deported.
However, let’s square a logical inconsistency in Matt’s (and others’) defense of him. He wasn’t just speaking. He was a SPOKESPERSON for an entire movement that was conducting illegal activity who yet somehow wasn’t involved in any of these actions? As someone who got a taste of the behind the scenes of campus protest as an undergraduate, let me tell you: there is no way someone becomes a spokesperson for a protest movement without being intimately involved in the planning and execution of that movement’s actions. That he presumed to speak on their behalf suggests some degree of coordination with them if not control.
This is what we need to have aired to the public to assuage those (like me) who agree with Matt IF it’s a speech issue alone but disagree if it involves coordination and control of illegal protest. Was Khalil involved in any of these illegal activities behind the scenes? Release the evidence.
Exactly. What do his defenders think? Did he just coincidentally show up at opportune moments and exert his 1A rights without knowledge of any of the illegal protester activities? BS.
Exactly. But even if it's about free speech alone, you can argue 1. he doesn't have the same rights as citizens and 2 His speech (and documents positions) are inciting violence and probably did. He went to more than one university to do this, so it wasn't organic. I don't think a non-citizen has the free speech rights to come here and talk about taking down America. Don't think so. But yes.
Sure, but I am trying to argue from the maximalist civil liberties position, to persuade the ardent civil libertarians like Matt (and myself) that there is the possibility this is justified if we see evidence of behind the scenes coordination or control of illegal actions at Columbia.
What I take away from several of your comments here is that "there is a possibility that [the deportation] is justified", rather than "we commenters know enough to decide whether his deportation is justified or not". I appreciate that distinction.
I would prefer that the evidence for and against be presented in a functional court proceedings, in which the case against him is not based on prohibited speech, but criminal collusion or a related charge. If convicted after due process, deport. If not, then even if we strongly disagree with what he says (and I do), the first amendment should apply (the SCOTUS says it applies to legal permanent residents as well as citizens).
I'm somewhat dismayed by people who believe he should be summarily deported based on fragments of selectively presented assertion, without a full hearing of both sides. I see more and more progressives wanting to punish people "just because we all know they are evil", without due process or respect for free speech. I don't want to see both sides doing it.
Yes, I get it because I consider myself a civil liberties free speech person. But this isn't right, either.