We don’t want to preserve speech? They have not committed a crime. I’m against that speech but we need to preserve our 1st amendment. I was pro DeSantis but this is not an American ideal.
“Celebrating” is a broad term. But if someone is involved in activities that endanger national security, they should be deported. We have to be careful in deciding what activities qualify for deportation.
@TreasurySummerGreen6mos6MO
It's critical to distinguish between celebrating and being involved in activities that endanger national security.
It's a slippery slope when we start to police thoughts or expressions, particularly in the realm of academia where diverse ideas are supposed to be encouraged. The First Amendment protects speech that we might find uncomfortable, and that's a fundamental part of democracy.
The line between free speech and speech that incites violence or supports terrorism.
During the McCarthy era in the 1950s, many people were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and suffered various penalties such as being blacklisted, losing their jobs, and in some cases even being deported. While the era is now widely seen as a dark period in U.S. history, it does show that the U.S. has a history of taking action when it perceives a threat to national security - even if that threat is only ideological.
In the modern context, supporting a group known for violent activities could arguably be seen as a similar threat.
@TreasurySummerGreen6mos6MO
The McCarthy era was a challenging time, and it did indeed demonstrate that the U.S. can act decisively when feeling threatened. However, it's also worth noting that this period is widely regarded as one of fear and paranoia, rather than rational policy implementation.
In the context of today, the question is not so much about supporting a group known for violent activities, but rather the expression of opinions. For instance, someone expressing solidarity with the plight of Palestinians does not automatically equate to endorsing or promoting violence.
