The immigration judge ruled this afternoon that he can be deported. His attorney has said that he’d appeal the decision in the next week. If it were my choice, he’d have left the courthouse for the airport to be immediately deported. He can appeal from Syria!
Exactly right. We’ve generally lost sight of a really simple truth: if you don’t like America, don’t come here. No need to complicate it more than that
Very, very thorough piece. Of course there are limits to free speech; that's why we have prohibitions against slander. Actually, now that I think about it, none of the First Amendment rights are absolute. Press - lying in print, Assembly - fine, but not if you are assembling at a doxed Justice's home. Foreigners like Khalil do not have the right to subversion.
Thanks Fred! You’re exactly right. A lot of people just assume there are just complete immunities for whatever criminal behavior they engage in as long as they can point at a tangentially related right. Tons of crimes are still enforceable even though they technically also had to do with someone sharing an opinion—first amendment is not a get out a jail free card!
“other people’s lawless protest activity (which we typically would not hold Khalil responsible for)”
Depending on what you mean by “typically”, I suppose. Much of the rest of the post (which is well done, BTW) seems to be about how we can in fact hold him responsible for it. There is also conspiracy, aiding and abetting, probably other ordinary and longstanding grounds for holding someone responsible for the acts of others.
Yes you’re exactly right—those are the very legal theories I had in mind when saying “typically”, because they are exceptions to that general rule. Those crimes are a lot harder to prove and require a lost more evidence than I could find for Khalils case, so I didn’t get into them. But you’re totally right that he could’ve been charged under those theories and held responsible for others acts—assuming the evidence could support those charges!
Your comment is making me regret not adding a quick note on this point. I took it out so as not to overly complicate article, but I think I sometimes forget how sophisticated our readers are lol
He needs to go. My reason is there was a huge convention of so called Palistinian-Americans in this country who want to bring what they call the EMPIRE (the US) down for good by any means possible. He is just one outspoken against the US. Rasheda what ever her name is who is a US Congress woman from Michigan --the convention of 5,000 + was held in Detroit. She stood on the platform with her right hand raised in anger shouting Bring the Empire down by any means necessary and if that means they die oh well. They have to be dead before they fall. That's a threat to every American born in this country.
100% agree with this. However, I would like to push back slightly on a minor point you made. That freedom of speech is not absolute.
Absolute free speech is, in fact, compatible with the exceptions provided for in US constitutional law. An absolutist stance on free speech only “morally disallows all such restrictions that are directed against the communicative character of any of those activities.”
In the case of exceptions to the principle, the law is targeting the non-communicative character of the activity involved. By this, I mean that the law is targeting speech not for its content but by the fact that as a mode of wrongdoing it can be perpetrated by communicative and non-communicative means. Thus, things like incitement, defamation, fraud, and misrepresentation are communication-independent since they are modes of wrongdoing which can be perpetrated by both communicative and non-communicative means.
To take defamation as an example, I can lower someone’s reputation not simply by conveying falsehoods about them, I can, for instance, lower Donald Trump’s standing by lacing his drink with a hallucinogen prior to him delivering a big speech. Both the communicative and non-communicative acts are calculated to unjustly lower an individual’s reputation. Thus, when a law proscribes defamation, it is not targeting speech qua speech. Rather, it is targeting speech for the wrong-making properties it shares with similar non-communicative conduct which is intended to unjustly lower another’s reputation.
Thanks for reading Clapham Omnibus--and for the thought provoking comment! That's a very interesting interpretation of free speech principles--I don't think I've seen someone lay it out quite like that before
No worries, I do love your stuff. I actually wrote a comparative paper on incitement law in the US and my jurisdiction (Singapore) advocating for a more US-based reform on the basis of that theory of free expression.
The immigration judge ruled this afternoon that he can be deported. His attorney has said that he’d appeal the decision in the next week. If it were my choice, he’d have left the courthouse for the airport to be immediately deported. He can appeal from Syria!
I agree
Maybe a court in Syria will hear his complaint
😂 We’d love to see it
I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that these people entering this country should show respect for this country.
You want to be educated, work, live here, so why cant the people respect this country for what it is?
If you dont like what we the USA stands for then dont come here
It is simple
I do NOT want to go to Gaza, Syria, Iran or anywhere else and protest for any reason.
I think if that happened I would expect to get thrown out of those countries
Throw them out of this country with a lifetime ban!!!!
Tell them to go back where they came from and protest there!!!!!
Exactly right. We’ve generally lost sight of a really simple truth: if you don’t like America, don’t come here. No need to complicate it more than that
Very, very thorough piece. Of course there are limits to free speech; that's why we have prohibitions against slander. Actually, now that I think about it, none of the First Amendment rights are absolute. Press - lying in print, Assembly - fine, but not if you are assembling at a doxed Justice's home. Foreigners like Khalil do not have the right to subversion.
Thanks Fred! You’re exactly right. A lot of people just assume there are just complete immunities for whatever criminal behavior they engage in as long as they can point at a tangentially related right. Tons of crimes are still enforceable even though they technically also had to do with someone sharing an opinion—first amendment is not a get out a jail free card!
“other people’s lawless protest activity (which we typically would not hold Khalil responsible for)”
Depending on what you mean by “typically”, I suppose. Much of the rest of the post (which is well done, BTW) seems to be about how we can in fact hold him responsible for it. There is also conspiracy, aiding and abetting, probably other ordinary and longstanding grounds for holding someone responsible for the acts of others.
I edited and linked this comment :)
Yes you’re exactly right—those are the very legal theories I had in mind when saying “typically”, because they are exceptions to that general rule. Those crimes are a lot harder to prove and require a lost more evidence than I could find for Khalils case, so I didn’t get into them. But you’re totally right that he could’ve been charged under those theories and held responsible for others acts—assuming the evidence could support those charges!
Your comment is making me regret not adding a quick note on this point. I took it out so as not to overly complicate article, but I think I sometimes forget how sophisticated our readers are lol
Crossing the border cannot make it olly olly oxenfree. Citizenship means something.
He needs to go. My reason is there was a huge convention of so called Palistinian-Americans in this country who want to bring what they call the EMPIRE (the US) down for good by any means possible. He is just one outspoken against the US. Rasheda what ever her name is who is a US Congress woman from Michigan --the convention of 5,000 + was held in Detroit. She stood on the platform with her right hand raised in anger shouting Bring the Empire down by any means necessary and if that means they die oh well. They have to be dead before they fall. That's a threat to every American born in this country.
People shouldn’t come here who don’t like it here. If you want to live somewhere more like your home country, stay in your home country
100% agree with this. However, I would like to push back slightly on a minor point you made. That freedom of speech is not absolute.
Absolute free speech is, in fact, compatible with the exceptions provided for in US constitutional law. An absolutist stance on free speech only “morally disallows all such restrictions that are directed against the communicative character of any of those activities.”
In the case of exceptions to the principle, the law is targeting the non-communicative character of the activity involved. By this, I mean that the law is targeting speech not for its content but by the fact that as a mode of wrongdoing it can be perpetrated by communicative and non-communicative means. Thus, things like incitement, defamation, fraud, and misrepresentation are communication-independent since they are modes of wrongdoing which can be perpetrated by both communicative and non-communicative means.
To take defamation as an example, I can lower someone’s reputation not simply by conveying falsehoods about them, I can, for instance, lower Donald Trump’s standing by lacing his drink with a hallucinogen prior to him delivering a big speech. Both the communicative and non-communicative acts are calculated to unjustly lower an individual’s reputation. Thus, when a law proscribes defamation, it is not targeting speech qua speech. Rather, it is targeting speech for the wrong-making properties it shares with similar non-communicative conduct which is intended to unjustly lower another’s reputation.
Thanks for reading Clapham Omnibus--and for the thought provoking comment! That's a very interesting interpretation of free speech principles--I don't think I've seen someone lay it out quite like that before
No worries, I do love your stuff. I actually wrote a comparative paper on incitement law in the US and my jurisdiction (Singapore) advocating for a more US-based reform on the basis of that theory of free expression.
How interesting--we would love to read that if you're willing to share it with us!
Here you are!
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5031611
Finally I feel satiated with enough knowledge that my common sense told me was the case. Thank you
That’s what every good legal decision should do! Thanks for reading, Tom