Re: OT: "Free speech" becomes a verb & noun...

On 1/31/2025 6:40 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jan 31, 2025 at 3:25:01 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 1/31/2025 5:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Jan 31, 2025 at 2:20:52 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 1/31/2025 4:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Jan 31, 2025 at 12:36:27 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
   

    On 1/31/2025 1:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

      On Jan 31, 2025 at 9:37:23 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
     

      On 1/30/2025 6:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

        On Jan 30, 2025 at 2:43:15 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
  wrote:
       

        On 1/30/2025 4:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

          On Jan 30, 2025 at 12:13:03 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
    wrote:
         

          On 1/30/2025 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

            On Jan 30, 2025 at 9:47:35 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com>
      wrote:
           

            On 1/29/2025 11:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

              On Jan 29, 2025 at 8:37:20 PM PST, "moviePig"
<nobody@nowhere.com>
        wrote:
             

          "Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian
          protesters"
>
>
>
>
>
>
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

                      It's a deportable offense under the U.S. Code for a resident alien to
        advocate for or express support for a terrorist organization.

>
            So then, I'm guessing this administration would've championed
            deportations from Skokie in '77.  What do you think?

                      Was there a designated terrorist organization involved in Skokie,
    and were
          the participants resident aliens or American citizens?

>
          Is "pro-Palestine" a terrorist organization?

                    Nice try. Waving the actual flag of Hamas is not simply
  'pro-Palestine'.
          Neither is chanting the official Hamas motto from its own charter:
      "From the
          river to the sea."
         

             Is pro-Nazi not?

                    The American Nazi Party was not a designated terrorist
  organization and
      even
          if it was, all those marching were American citizens, not resident
    aliens.

>
        "A designated terrorist organization" sounds a lot like "It's
different
        when WE do it".

                Regardless, if a group hasn't been listed as a designated terrorist
    group by
        the Department of State, then the statute does not apply. Back in
  the 70s,
        when the Skokie march occurred, the American Nazi Party was not a
    designated
        terrorist organization, nor were the participants foreign nationals.
       

        Trump is punishing these students for their speech

                No, he's enforcing American immigration law, something that you
  apparently
        can't stand, and which Biden failed to do for four straight years. No,
      that's
        wrong. Biden didn't fail to do it. That implies a lack of intent. He
    refused
        to do it.
       

        once again leveraging populist spleen to flout bedrock American
    principles.

                It's not an American principle to allow agents of violent foreign
    jihadists
        that hate America to come to this country and radicalize our own
    population
      to
        their cause. That is in no way, shape, or form something the 1st
  Amendment
      was
        intended to protect.
       

          I can't fathom any free-speech advocate's support of this.

                Well, I can't fathom your constant opposition to most of what the 1st
        Amendment *does* protect, so we'll call it a wash.

>
      Call it a whitewash, because it is.  These students are being punished
      for voicing support of Palestine

            If they're hoisting the flag of Hamas and chanting "from the river
to the
      sea", then they're doing a lot more than voicing support for Palestine.
      American citizens are allowed to do that but if you're a guest in our
    country
      you better be on your best behavior and not go all in for a terrorist
      organization that advocates for the destruction of America.
            We don't need you here. You have no right to be here. So endorsing
a group
      whose stated goal is the destruction of our country (along with Israel)
    while
      here as our guest has consequences. Fuck around and find out.
     

      Suffice to suppose that, if this deportation initiative were Democratic,
      you'd be apoplectic.

            I'd be apoplectic because I'd be shocked to my core that the current
  crop of
      Democrats were actually deporting anyone for anything.
            My idiotic mayor, fresh off her spectacularly appalling performance
during
    the
      wildfires, was on TV yesterday reassuring "the immigrant community"
  that the
      city of Los Angeles will protect you from ICE no matter what crimes
you've
      committed. She's literally on TV telling rapists, murderers,
thieves, and
      narco-traffickers that she has their back.
            Never mind that "the immigrant community" she's so worried about has no
    desire
      to have those violent shitbags turned loose on their streets any
more than
      anyone else does.

>
    I get that you're pleased with the practical result of Trump's vendetta,
    just as (I assume) you're pleased that we've let Trump skate on
    attempted election corruption.  I just can't see how you're comfortable
    with the cost to our basic principles (...with more likely to follow).

        What basic principles require us to tolerate the presence of illegal
aliens
  at
    all, let alone illegal aliens that commit depraved violent crimes against
  our
    citizens?

>
  So, the ends justify the means?

    Still waiting for you to describe ehat basic principles require us to
tolerate
  the presence of illegal aliens at all, let alone illegal aliens that commit
  depraved violent crimes against our citizens?
    And what "means" are you talking about? Police finding the criminals like
they
  would any other fugitive, arresting them, and putting them on a plane back
to
  their country of origin? Those "means"? Yes, they are most certainly
  justified.

>
The "means" are the abrogation of our free-speech principle

 Says the guy who has no problem with censorship if government decides the
speech involved isn't worthy enough.

That sounds misinformed.  Perhaps you can be more specific...

and our turning a blind eye to blatant election fraud.

 What does election fraud have to do with any of this?

Trump has violated both election integrity and free speech, and is getting a pass.  One can only wonder what's next ...religious freedom? I mean, it's just another govt.-dictated personal choice, isn't it?

I'm asking about the ICE round-ups of violent illegal alien criminals--
something you objected to-- and exactly how that somehow violates "basic
American principles".

If you "round up" only those who voice ideas you don't like, then yeah, that's contrary to the principle of free speech ...no matter how glad you are to be rid of those folks.