I often find myself in conversations with people who loudly profess their opinions as if they were fact but who, in fact, have no knowledge of the subjects they are speaking about. And yet, they opine, they gesticulate, and they carry on as if they are acknowledged experts in the field. They are confusing feelings with facts.
My job is to expose these highly emotional, grossly misinformed people to real information and guide them to a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. Of course, they are free to express their opinion as loudly and with as much fervor as they can muster.
Freedom of speech - with limits
The current debate about freedom of speech and the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil – the former graduate student and rabble-rousing leader of Columbia University’s pro-Hamas rallies – is a perfect case in point.
Most infuriating for me is that many of the people espousing their views shape their opinions on the irresponsible and ill-informed opinions of commentators from media outlets with once highly august names. Analysts who spew incorrect details proclaim violations of freedom of speech and the right to assembly. Outlets egg on their minions with totally incorrect information, all in the name of justice and freedom.
While they are correct that the First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly protects freedom of expression and that case law extends that right to everyone, not just to citizens.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
One could think that Khalil and his supporters would therefore be on very solid ground – that his right to free speech and his right to assemble and protest are indeed protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But they are not.
There are two very important caveats.
First, freedom of speech is not without limits. While you may speak, your speech is limited. One may not incite violence or interfere or encroach on the rights of others.
We can debate how involved Khalil was in preventing Columbia students from going to class or preventing their movement around campus or stimulating people to attack Jewish students or deface property. If he was involved – and we have the photos and video to prove that he was, then his right to speak is no longer protected.
Second, all green card holders must answer and sign a series of very serious questions to qualify for the card that grants them the privilege to live and work permanently in the United States.
Everyone, including Khalil, had to answer the question: “Do you intend to engage in any activity that could endanger the safety and security of the United States?”
Another question this card-carrying supporter of Hamas had to answer is: “Have you ever served in, been a member of, assisted (helped), or participated in any armed group (a group that carries weapons)…”
These are questions that trump the First Amendment.The US State Department does not grant a green card to anyone who acknowledges their involvement in any of these activities. If it is discovered that a green card holder, or for that matter, a student visa holder, has been involved and lied while answering those questions, their status is revoked without due process, without a trial, and without a judge.
This is not an opinion. This is the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which squarely places the power to revoke and deport exclusively in the hands of the secretary of state of the United States.
Khalil "assisted" in the Hamas October 7 massacre
By Khalid’s own admission he “assisted (helped).” He defended Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel. The issue is a slam dunk.
Now, regarding the practical application and the case law: Khalil is free to leave the US at any time. He is not free to wander around the country and advocate for genocide and support Hamas. If he wants to leave, he may leave. If he is in violation, he will be forced to leave.
The 1969 US Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg vs Ohio, having nothing to do with immigration or naturalization, establishes the limits of free speech. Speech is not protected if the speech is “directed to incite lawless action” or “likely to incite or produce such action.”
That is very clear.
Add to that a very powerful and on-point decision by Federal District Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, before he was elevated to the Supreme Court, in the case of Bulman vs FEC in 2012.
Kavanaugh wrote “that aliens’ First Amendment’s rights may be less robust than those of citizens in certain discrete areas.”
In Reno vs American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Supreme Court ruled that “when an alien’s continuing presence is in violation of the immigration laws, the government does not offend the Constitution by deporting him for the additional reason that it believes him to be a member of an organization that supports terrorist activity.”
That case was decided by the US Supreme in 1999 under the tenure of Democratic president Bill Clinton.
The issue is crystal clear. Khalil and anyone on a student visa or with a green card who supports Hamas can be deported without a judge’s imprimatur. Mahmoud Khalil can rightly be deported from the United States. It does not matter how many pundits in these august media outlets proclaim it as a violation of freedom of speech. They are simply wrong.
The writer is a columnist and social and political commentator. Watch his TV show Thinking Out Loud on the Jewish Broadcasting Service.