I had heard the Texas case was a controversial one... Even as someone among the groups stereotypically associated with those advocating for drag bans (right-leaning and Christian), I still find those types of bans troubling. Actually, they make me angry... I firmly believe that every person has a right to freely express their own beliefs and live in the culture and livestyle they choose, including my own political or religious decisions, and I know the way towards finding acceptance for myself isn't censoring others.
I've experienced a lot of left-wing censorship that ultimately shifted me to lean more right, but I share the fears of right-wing policies going too far. Censorship solves nothing.
It's frustrating how few people realize they don't have to punish something just because they don't like it! There has to be a better way forward... And I appreciate FIRE standing up for free speech regardless of the viewpoints expressed! We need more non-partisan and bi-partisan efforts like this!
Once again you consistently spin everything Trump-related in the most negative light you can. Here, these are quotes taken from your own article:
"Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct,"
"If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding"
"Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard."
Nothing said in President Trump's posting contradicts any of that. FIRE's own surveys show that these schools are places where the students are more afraid of the admin, their fellow students, and in many cases criminal "protestors" who aren't even students at those schools... Yet it's Trump you accuse of infringing Free Speech for taking actions your own article confirmed are "vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard".
If you're going to keep claiming that FIRE is non-partisan than why do these articles consistently libel President Trump, bury the admissions that he's doing anything good, and misrepresent the actual facts of the case?
Yes. These were 'activists' engaged in illegal activities.
To quote the article itself: "The Department of Homeland Security can initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders for a broad range alleged criminal activity, including supporting a terror group."
FIRE does not condone criminal activities, whether by 'activists' or not.
talks broke down on Tuesday night, according to the lead negotiator, Mahmoud Khalil, after he said the university threatened to send in police and the National Guard if the encampment wasn’t gone by midnight. Hundreds of students and faculty quickly packed onto the lawn in the largest numbers since the start of the demonstration.
Opponents of the encampment say it has destabilized campus life, forcing the university to barricade many of its entrances to nonstudents while putting Jewish students in harm’s way.
Shafik (Columbia's President) issued a statement saying the school had warned protesters on Wednesday that they would be suspended if the encampment was not removed. School officials made the decision Thursday to call in police and clear out the demonstrators, she said.
“The individuals who established the encampment violated a long list of rules and policies,” she wrote.
Shafik also said the university tried through several channels “to engage with their concerns and offered to continue discussions if they agreed to disperse.”
Shafik said she had taken the “extraordinary step” of requesting police intervention because the encampment had disrupted campus life and created a “harassing and intimidating environment” for many students.
Police said 108 people were charged with trespassing at the private Ivy League institution.
“Students have a right to free speech, but do not have a right to violate university policies and disrupt learning on campus,” New York Mayor Adams said.
All arrested protesters were released from custody and issued with summonses, according to an NYPD spokesperson. Columbia began formally notifying students of suspensions for participating in the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” charging them with disruptive behavior, violation of law, violation of University policy, failure to comply, vandalism or damage to property, and unauthorized access or egress.
So let's see: all that plus conspiracy, trespass, harassment, for starters. The encampment itself was illegal regardless of the 'protesters' stated cause. That's not viewpoint discrimination, nobody is allowed to do that. They literally took part of the campus hostage, brought in outside activists with no right to access school grounds, disrupted other students' access to campus facilities, and made threats to the administration to try to impose their own politics on the school. None of that is "protected speech".
Even though I deeply disagree with your overwrought characterization of the students’ actions and see that your your support of free speech is likely dependent on your political views, the article clearly states that the protesters had already been arrested and issued a summons. So what new crime was Khalil charged with (was he, in fact, charged with a crime at all?), and why was he the only activist who was re-arrested?
This quote seems relevant from a recent official statement.
"Yesterday evening, we revoked the first visa of an alien who was previously cited for criminal behavior in connection with Hamas-supporting disruptions,” State Department officials said Thursday. “This individual was a university student. ICE will proceed with removing this person from the country.”
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence....
(e) In addition to identifying relevant authorities to curb or combat anti-Semitism generally required by this section, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with each other, shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.
Which merely reminds schools of long existing law already on our books (at least since 1956, last amended in 2009): 8 USC 1182, which among a number of other clauses permitting refusal of entry or removal on the basis of ANY illegal activity also clearly addressed Terrorism and Terrorist Organizations in substantial depth. Most likely, the operative clause in this case is Security and Related Grounds Terrorism (B)(VII) any alien who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;" is inadmissable.
The statement says 'the first', so it's quite possible (and probable) that more deportations will follow. OTOH, 8 USC 1182 specifically applies to aliens, not citizens (different Codes apply in that case), so it's entirely possible that he happened to be the only alien among the 109 'activists' who were arrested.
MY 'overwrought characterization'? Nearly my entire comment was made of direct quotes. If you're disputing the School's President then I'm rather curious what source you are relying on instead. Perhaps you would care to offer your own characterization of their actions as a comparison before we move further into debating the facts of the matter?
Incidentally, no, my support for Free Speech is not in any way dependent on the politics of the speakers. For example, I still consider the high point of the old ACLU to be the Skokie case. THAT took integrity.
If you were at all familiar with my comment history you'd have found that I make a point of subscribing to authors with perspectives with which I disagree and I'm quite fond of quoting John Stuart Mills, particularly this passage from On Liberty: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
I quite value hearing other perspectives and engaging in open debate with them. I simply understand the legal and philosophical lines between "protected speech" and "illegal conduct".
Perhaps you have a different perspective though regarding the drawing of those lines. If so, I'd like to hear it.
Do you consider physical trespass onto another's property a form of protected speech or an impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider the disruption of legitimate business to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider an imminent threat that a criminal action will follow unless someone else submits to certain demands to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider the endorsement of terrorist activities or formally designated terrorist organizations or material support thereunto to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
You cannot and must not muffle public speech to protect Jewish students' ears nor ban signs, flags, and images to shelter their eyes. You can and must protect their bodies and ensure access to all lecture halls, classrooms, labs, and other campus facilities.
I had heard the Texas case was a controversial one... Even as someone among the groups stereotypically associated with those advocating for drag bans (right-leaning and Christian), I still find those types of bans troubling. Actually, they make me angry... I firmly believe that every person has a right to freely express their own beliefs and live in the culture and livestyle they choose, including my own political or religious decisions, and I know the way towards finding acceptance for myself isn't censoring others.
I've experienced a lot of left-wing censorship that ultimately shifted me to lean more right, but I share the fears of right-wing policies going too far. Censorship solves nothing.
It's frustrating how few people realize they don't have to punish something just because they don't like it! There has to be a better way forward... And I appreciate FIRE standing up for free speech regardless of the viewpoints expressed! We need more non-partisan and bi-partisan efforts like this!
Once again you consistently spin everything Trump-related in the most negative light you can. Here, these are quotes taken from your own article:
"Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct,"
"If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding"
"Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard."
Nothing said in President Trump's posting contradicts any of that. FIRE's own surveys show that these schools are places where the students are more afraid of the admin, their fellow students, and in many cases criminal "protestors" who aren't even students at those schools... Yet it's Trump you accuse of infringing Free Speech for taking actions your own article confirmed are "vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard".
If you're going to keep claiming that FIRE is non-partisan than why do these articles consistently libel President Trump, bury the admissions that he's doing anything good, and misrepresent the actual facts of the case?
Oh hey is this Trump protecting free speech on campus? Asking for a friend. https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8
Yes. These were 'activists' engaged in illegal activities.
To quote the article itself: "The Department of Homeland Security can initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders for a broad range alleged criminal activity, including supporting a terror group."
FIRE does not condone criminal activities, whether by 'activists' or not.
Please specify what ‘criminal activities’ this individual engaged in, besides speech that you don’t agree with.
Again, following your own links:
talks broke down on Tuesday night, according to the lead negotiator, Mahmoud Khalil, after he said the university threatened to send in police and the National Guard if the encampment wasn’t gone by midnight. Hundreds of students and faculty quickly packed onto the lawn in the largest numbers since the start of the demonstration.
Opponents of the encampment say it has destabilized campus life, forcing the university to barricade many of its entrances to nonstudents while putting Jewish students in harm’s way.
Shafik (Columbia's President) issued a statement saying the school had warned protesters on Wednesday that they would be suspended if the encampment was not removed. School officials made the decision Thursday to call in police and clear out the demonstrators, she said.
“The individuals who established the encampment violated a long list of rules and policies,” she wrote.
Shafik also said the university tried through several channels “to engage with their concerns and offered to continue discussions if they agreed to disperse.”
Shafik said she had taken the “extraordinary step” of requesting police intervention because the encampment had disrupted campus life and created a “harassing and intimidating environment” for many students.
Police said 108 people were charged with trespassing at the private Ivy League institution.
“Students have a right to free speech, but do not have a right to violate university policies and disrupt learning on campus,” New York Mayor Adams said.
All arrested protesters were released from custody and issued with summonses, according to an NYPD spokesperson. Columbia began formally notifying students of suspensions for participating in the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” charging them with disruptive behavior, violation of law, violation of University policy, failure to comply, vandalism or damage to property, and unauthorized access or egress.
So let's see: all that plus conspiracy, trespass, harassment, for starters. The encampment itself was illegal regardless of the 'protesters' stated cause. That's not viewpoint discrimination, nobody is allowed to do that. They literally took part of the campus hostage, brought in outside activists with no right to access school grounds, disrupted other students' access to campus facilities, and made threats to the administration to try to impose their own politics on the school. None of that is "protected speech".
Even though I deeply disagree with your overwrought characterization of the students’ actions and see that your your support of free speech is likely dependent on your political views, the article clearly states that the protesters had already been arrested and issued a summons. So what new crime was Khalil charged with (was he, in fact, charged with a crime at all?), and why was he the only activist who was re-arrested?
This quote seems relevant from a recent official statement.
"Yesterday evening, we revoked the first visa of an alien who was previously cited for criminal behavior in connection with Hamas-supporting disruptions,” State Department officials said Thursday. “This individual was a university student. ICE will proceed with removing this person from the country.”
The basis was likely this
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/additional-measures-to-combat-anti-semitism/
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence....
(e) In addition to identifying relevant authorities to curb or combat anti-Semitism generally required by this section, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with each other, shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.
Which merely reminds schools of long existing law already on our books (at least since 1956, last amended in 2009): 8 USC 1182, which among a number of other clauses permitting refusal of entry or removal on the basis of ANY illegal activity also clearly addressed Terrorism and Terrorist Organizations in substantial depth. Most likely, the operative clause in this case is Security and Related Grounds Terrorism (B)(VII) any alien who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;" is inadmissable.
The statement says 'the first', so it's quite possible (and probable) that more deportations will follow. OTOH, 8 USC 1182 specifically applies to aliens, not citizens (different Codes apply in that case), so it's entirely possible that he happened to be the only alien among the 109 'activists' who were arrested.
MY 'overwrought characterization'? Nearly my entire comment was made of direct quotes. If you're disputing the School's President then I'm rather curious what source you are relying on instead. Perhaps you would care to offer your own characterization of their actions as a comparison before we move further into debating the facts of the matter?
Incidentally, no, my support for Free Speech is not in any way dependent on the politics of the speakers. For example, I still consider the high point of the old ACLU to be the Skokie case. THAT took integrity.
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-came-to-represent-the-free-speech-rights-of-nazis
If you were at all familiar with my comment history you'd have found that I make a point of subscribing to authors with perspectives with which I disagree and I'm quite fond of quoting John Stuart Mills, particularly this passage from On Liberty: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
I quite value hearing other perspectives and engaging in open debate with them. I simply understand the legal and philosophical lines between "protected speech" and "illegal conduct".
Perhaps you have a different perspective though regarding the drawing of those lines. If so, I'd like to hear it.
Do you consider physical trespass onto another's property a form of protected speech or an impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider the disruption of legitimate business to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider an imminent threat that a criminal action will follow unless someone else submits to certain demands to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Do you consider the endorsement of terrorist activities or formally designated terrorist organizations or material support thereunto to be protected speech or impermissible conduct (a crime)?
Greg, how do we protect free speech on campus but protect Jewish students?
You cannot and must not muffle public speech to protect Jewish students' ears nor ban signs, flags, and images to shelter their eyes. You can and must protect their bodies and ensure access to all lecture halls, classrooms, labs, and other campus facilities.
Agree