Yeah, this is a perennial truth -- landmark struggles over free speech typically involve people who are saying and doing things that are *unpopular* That's, uh, why they need the protection of the First Amendment. It's sort of the whole point. - ThreadSky

kevinmkruse.bsky.social • 1 day ago

Yeah, this is a perennial truth -- landmark struggles over free speech typically involve people who are saying and doing things that are *unpopular*

That's, uh, why they need the protection of the First Amendment. It's sort of the whole point.

Reposted from William B. Fuckley

if you find yourself reluctant to support the guy at Columbia because you find some of the politics he espoused distasteful or even abhorrent, you should know that this is exactly the reaction that they hoped for in choosing him as a target for unlawful detention based on political speech.

Comments

denotor.bsky.social•1 day ago

From H.L. Mencken

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

kevinmkruse.bsky.social•1 day ago

Nice pull, I forgot about that one

arijojo.bsky.social•1 day ago

🔥 Exactly, Kevin! Free speech isn’t for the comfortable – it’s for the uncomfortable. When Trump’s government starts punishing dissent, that’s not protection – that’s FASCISM. 🚨👊

⚠️ FIGHT BACK – FOLLOW ME & DEFEND DEMOCRACY! 🔥💥

boomer-michael.bsky.social•1 day ago

The university and the city (and its compromised mayor, #EricAdams) allowed this unlawful detention to happen. Shame! And Donald ‘there’s fine people on both sides’ Trump has no credibility on the issue of #antisemitism.

yesbiscuit.bsky.social•1 day ago

That's why it's the FIRST amendment. The freedom to say shit that pleases the government didn't even make the list.

outpost36.bsky.social•18 hours ago

shinery.bsky.social•1 day ago

I've seen people make some really horrific assumptions about this guy, like the fact that he hates all Jews. I don't know where they're getting that from, but it says more about them and how they view Palestinians than anything.

shinery.bsky.social•1 day ago

Like, you can say you support the guy and disagree with his extrajudicial abduction without making baseless accusations about him and anyone else who is pro-Palestine.

loudpenitent.bsky.social•1 day ago

We're getting it from what the Columbia protests actually said and wrote.

shinery.bsky.social•1 day ago

So you're saying that the Jewish protesters hate all Jews? Or is it only the Palestinian ones?

loudpenitent.bsky.social•1 day ago

No, I'm saying this specific protest at which this dude was a leading figure was rife with antisemitism, and others weren't, and folks are judging him accordingly.

still doesn't rob him of his rights

shinery.bsky.social•1 day ago

Him being present when hatred was happening doesn't make him guilty of that hatred. That's a bizarre, dangerous and nebulous line in the sand to draw, and it's what Trump is doing.

loudpenitent.bsky.social•1 day ago

He was a *leader* in those protests, and those protests have released public statements full of antisemitism and praise for Hamas' actions.

It is not a difficult line to draw just because the conclusion is unpalatable. Again, it doesn't mean he loses rights.

edwinmix.bsky.social•1 day ago

You don't need a first amendment to protect yourself against people who agree with you.

msdobalina.bsky.social•1 day ago

In a nutshell, if you find yourself at odds with the ACLU, consider it an invitation to do some maintenance on your political philosophy.

aaronbachmann.bsky.social•1 day ago

See Brandenburg v. Ohio, for instance.

richardjellyfish.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's the very reason the ACLU went to court to support the NAZIs in Illinois. Yes, they are repugnant (still are) but once you start limiting free speech there's no end.

thejefty.bsky.social•1 day ago

That's not really true though. Plenty of countries in Europe have laws banning Nazi advocacy without sliding down that slippery slope, while we held fast to our free speech principles and elected a fascist who's now disappearing people like this.

dc-757.bsky.social•1 day ago

Weird how they didn’t choose the anti Palestinian, the homophobe/antitrans guy, or any of the myriad white supremecists.

maximumgirl.bsky.social•18 hours ago

He disrupted the campus. He is a national security risk. He chanted slogans of HAMAS from the river to the sea. Students could not get to classes and were intimidated and harassed. Some, many Jewish left campus out of fear. This is not free speech.

pigeonpancake.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Fuck off nazi shit stain.

americantype.bsky.social•18 hours ago

It doesn't stop being free speech because you don't like it.

maximumgirl.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Intimidation and harassment is not free speech

americantype.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Intimidation and harassment is not free speech

are* not free speech.

Always happy to help the poorly educated with their grammar issues.

americantype.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Yes, I agree.

The US Government are engaged in intimidation and harassment over Khalil's constitutionally protected free speech.

maximumgirl.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Again, no response to harassing and intimidating the other students? That’s A-OK?

americantype.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Um, the protestors had a car driven into them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/nyregion/columbia-driver-arrested-pro-palestinian-protesters.html

Link to where the protestors drove a car into anyone please.

gwpda.bsky.social•17 hours ago

So - kidnapping and incarceration are the correct response, in your opinion? Understanding that the person is a legal resident of the United States and could have been charged at the time for harassment and intimidation under ordinary criminal codes?

meldric.cc•18 hours ago

youre making things up

gwpda.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Bless your heart. A legal resident of the United States has as much right to be backa$$wards as do you, who also are a (presumably) legal resident of the United States. Your kidnapping and incarceration would be equally illegal as his. Civics is fun.

maximumgirl.bsky.social•16 hours ago

I do not disrupt a campus or intimidate and harass. Find it interesting all the disgusting activity while Biden pres who wants 2 state soln but Palestinians voted for TRUMP and GAZA RIVIERA. The demos hurt DEMS often wonder if repubs helped the demos.

gwpda.bsky.social•16 hours ago

Good for you. I'm sure you'll figure out all the big questions to your satisfaction - without trying. Hope it all works out the way you want it to. BTW - I'm really old w/ a lot of experience. Just about nothing ever works out the way you think it will.

gogojoe.bsky.social•16 hours ago

Many years ago the ACLU defended the American Nazi party's right to march in Skokie, IL.
Pissed off a lot of people but if you believe in free speech, you believe in free speech.

sakibk.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Supporting Palestine isn't even that unpopular!!! Gallup Poll last month--a majority of Americans support establishing a Palestinian state.

slucy.bsky.social•1 day ago

This is why the ACLU defended the Nazis marching through Skokie.

sanelunatic.bsky.social•1 day ago

Here's what's horrible: I'm not sure most Americans even SUPPORT free speech anymore. I posted a positive, kind suggestion in a YouTube comment and for over a week I've been insulted and attacked with variations on the theme of, "You don't have the right to say anything that I don't want to hear."

july2022.bsky.social•1 day ago

And, of course…

billygreg.bsky.social•19 hours ago

Democrats could say “Federal agents have detained Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful resident, for leading protests at Columbia. Arrested without charges, his arrest is blatantly unconstitutional. We remain steadfast in defending constitutional rights and will monitor this closely.” But we know they won’t.

inwpublicdefender.bsky.social•18 hours ago

An yes, this is clearly the fault of the Dems

carpboy823.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Hakeem Jeffries literally started his statement of "support" by condemning Khalil

ablativmeatshld.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Mencken had a line about this sort of thing.

magdi.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's the inverse of Civil Rights cases/actions, from Rosa Parks to Obergefell. Those who seek to advance rights choose "ideal" victims of injustice. Those who seek to curtail rights will seek "problematic" victims. Note that they choose to do this at a point of multiple fractures in the opposition.

magdi.bsky.social•1 day ago

In 2017/2018, there was a greater amount of unity in the Democratic opposition to Trump, at least among Democratic users of social media. Yes, all the post-2016 toxicity remained, but people were united against Muslim Ban & child separation. Now, there are more fractures. More feelings of betrayal.

magdi.bsky.social•1 day ago

I don't wish to undermine the the real reasons behind any sense of betrayal, anger, harm, etc. But, from a historical perspective, we're living in a time where ppl are less inclined to stand up for pure principles. It's the perfect time to pick a non-ideal victim & set the slippery slope on its path

majestic12.bsky.social•17 hours ago

I’m personally still pissed at a lot of people for what went down last year, but that won’t ever make me not stand up against ridiculous injustices like this.

whybee90.bsky.social•16 hours ago

By what went down last year, what do you mean?

majestic12.bsky.social•15 hours ago

I mean all the people that stared down the barrel of a pending existential crisis for the world and said, “nah, I’m good, I’ll sit this one out.”

saltypickles223.bsky.social•1 day ago

Isn't this where that quote "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" comes in?

barbara-waxer.bsky.social•1 day ago

The 1977 National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ruling showed us that
1) If you try to chill speech you end up embracing the tactics of the oppressors
2) Irony is not dead. The Nazis' sign then was “Free Speech for White People,” embraced by Trump and MAGAs today.

hoptimusprime.bsky.social•1 day ago

Who wants to guess what the public level of support for interracial marriage was at the time of Loving v Virginia? The right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of popularity.

tmorman.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Don't have to guess; 80% opposed interracial marriage at the time of the Loving v. Virginia decision,according to the firat graph here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx

halfbrickmccurdy.bsky.social•1 day ago

TBH I was more focussed on America pushing for regime change in Ukraine, but tell me more about this, I'm sure it's super duper important.

spinsterpanda.bsky.social•1 day ago

Adults have the ability to consider multiple issues at the same time.

halfbrickmccurdy.bsky.social•1 day ago

Hey, 1 individual vs undermining democracy in a country of 40 million being invaded by a nuclear power, eeky deakies, you utter clown fuck.

spinsterpanda.bsky.social•1 day ago

If you lose your right to free speech you won't be able to protest the treatment of Ukraine. The inability to understand the big picture got us to this place. Of course, you go to insults & name calling. Take your Jr. Hight intellect back to civics class.

halfbrickmccurdy.bsky.social•1 day ago

Americans were protesting it's Ukraine policy? That's news. All I see is progressive clowns scratching about for the chance to squawk the same ineffectual dumb they have for years on tiktok. And that's not high intellect, it's just disgust with American apathy in response to American imperialism.

spinsterpanda.bsky.social•1 day ago

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's there. TikTok isn't the best outlet for nuanced international policy takes.

lamama007.bsky.social•1 day ago

He's entitled to his beliefs even if you don't agree with him.

silverlynx35.bsky.social•1 day ago

The Texas vs. Johnson of our time...again.

newecclesiastes.bsky.social•1 day ago

stardustmomm.bsky.social•1 day ago

They believed Malcom X was a terrorist and they hated MLK. This is no different!!!

carolkilliney.bsky.social•1 day ago

Exactly, exactly, exactly! There’s lots of people doing things I don’t like, but the difference is I tolerate them. The toleration point shouldn’t be so low that no one can say something YOU don’t like.

davidmcintyre.bsky.social•17 hours ago

the US didn't deported people for their support of the IRA

kissemjolk.bsky.social•15 hours ago

I mean, Brandenburg v Ohio Set the new standard because hate speech needed to be protected.

Before that the standard was in Schenk v US which established that the government _could_ crack down on anti–war-draft pamphlets.

jwwicks.bsky.social•1 day ago

This always gets me
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxhg885xXlH2aZQHReBGechwHiklkmZm8k?si=vVV4hSL1vZPLkjo_

smintheus.bsky.social•1 day ago

I will fight to the death to protect your right to say uncontroversial things.

ravenonthill.bsky.social•1 day ago

"Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

justlycis.bsky.social•1 day ago

Details do matter but its always convenient without them, see the whole Trump administration.

gwpda.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Along with a demonstration that the 'administration' is what decides constitutes legal presence in the United States. If that guy's 'green card' isn't enough to prevent govt kidnapping then I'm sure my Certificate of Citizenship won't be - and the govt wants everyone to know it.

berserkercoach.bsky.social•1 day ago

If they'll disappear a lawful permanent resident for criticizing Israel, they'll disappear ANYONE for ANY REASON.

newdealneil.bsky.social•1 day ago

If these rights are out.
The Nazis are fare game.

sybilte420.bsky.social•1 day ago

spinsterpanda.bsky.social•1 day ago

I was once told that the ACLU should have found a different client instead of taking the Skokie case.

behan.bsky.social•18 hours ago

He was protesting genocide. How in the hell did that become *unpopular*?

seamiracles.bsky.social•1 day ago

yes, the Patriot Front basement dwellers slink out of their mom's house every few weeks and march around like tools in costume. I ABHOR them and would, if given a chance, throw my dog poop baggies at them. But, they have a right to assemble and announce that they are racist losers all they want.

belligan.bsky.social•1 day ago

💯

abelton.bsky.social•1 day ago

You mean the government doesn’t attempt to persecute folks who say things the government supports? That makes too much sense for a Monday. 👍

devobones.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yeah but why does it always seem to be defending white supremacists wanting to spout consequence free hate towards Jews and people of color?

jetblackbox.bsky.social•1 day ago

Nobody is torn about it-- the destruction of Constitutional rights is hitting everyone a thousand times as hard as any ambivalence about the guy's character.

zugernat.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I 100% agree, but I've seen a lot of people on here arguing against free speech for Nazis, white supremacists and so on. That to me is arguing out of both sides of one's mouth. You can't say "we must protect unpopular speech, but not THAT unpopular speech."

realcinematik.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Government should not be able to arrest, imprison, or punish them directly for speaking their views, but *society* has a responsibility and a duty to attack and stamp out intolerant ideologies for its own self-preservation.

zugernat.bsky.social•17 hours ago

I 100% agree with that. Free speech never exempts you from criticism, which is itself free speech.

carpboy823.bsky.social•18 hours ago

If someone chooses to (wrongly) say that an ethnic group is genetically inferior, for example, then I agree that the government should not be intervening. However, when that escalates to "k*ll this ethnic group" then it's imperative that they do. Not sure I've seen calls for govt to ban the former.

carpboy823.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Also to clarify, government officials can and should say the bigoted speech is abhorrent. It's just that those people shouldn't be arrested, disappeared, and imprisoned for it.

zugernat.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I've seen a lot of talk that we should ban swastikas and Nazi speech like Germany does. If you consider that "incitement to violence," then isn't KKK symbology also incitement to violence? And then you're heading down that slippery slope.

carpboy823.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I disagree with banning that speech if it is not calling for violence. The problem is that it often does, but race-exclusive speech on its own should not be policed and prosecuted but rather countered and ostracized by normal people in a functioning society.

zugernat.bsky.social•17 hours ago

Then we agree.

sarahdactyl.bsky.social•18 hours ago

There is a difference between freedom of speech and incitement. No one has accused Khalil of inciting speech that would meet any legal definition, whereas those arguing against white supremacist speech are specifically discussing incitement to violence, and/or social consequences, not legal ones.

zugernat.bsky.social•18 hours ago

There is definitely a distinction, but I don't think those arguing for restrictions on racist speech are focusing solely on incitement to violence.

sarahdactyl.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I haven't seen anyone argue that you can't say racist things, simply that they shouldn't be platformed. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith, but there is a huge difference between one's right to say what they want, however heinous, and others being compelled to host that speech.

zugernat.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I 100% agree about not having to platform speech. No question.

sarahdactyl.bsky.social•18 hours ago

I have seen a lot of arguments for 'get Nazis' off of social media' which doesn't restrict a Nazi's ability to say whatever they want. Saying it via a communication source not run by the government is not protected.

sgadarian.bsky.social•18 hours ago

If you don't believe in civil liberties for people you dislike, you don't believe in civil liberties.

poliscimonica.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Your least liked group! -John Sullivan

sgadarian.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Yes! Might do a nerdy post about this tomorrow!

aaroncalzada.bsky.social•1 day ago

Amen to that

rlux.nyc•1 day ago

It's deeply frustrating that I'm expected to support someone who hates my guts and would probably not return the favor should a Jew be the one in danger, but you're right.

thewanderingjew.bsky.social•1 day ago

????

nuggetthenonbiner.bsky.social•1 day ago

Short ver.: "I don't have to like that you're right to admit that you're right."

rlux.nyc•1 day ago

yes, thank you.

coolerthanjesus.bsky.social•1 day ago

FART PROUDLY! By Benjamin Franklin

rudalev.bsky.social•7 hours ago

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in US v. Schwimmer (1929): "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

cricketeden.bsky.social•1 day ago

I don't have to like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it.

cricketeden.bsky.social•1 day ago

Evelyn Hall..

toleranceforall.bsky.social•1 day ago

You can't pick and choose what is considered free speech.

Unless he falsely shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater, he can say whatever he wants.

wastelandrover.bsky.social•1 day ago

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

- Evelyn Hall

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply