Table of Contents
Ever since I heard about the curious case of Mahmoud Khalil, I’ve struggled with the story.
I don’t think I’ve had a situation with as many conflicting strong values as I see in this one.
For those not in the know: Mahmoud Khalil was a foreign student studying at Columbia University on a Green Card. He was an outspoken leader for the pro-Palestinian campus protests. Several weeks ago, he was forcefully removed from campus and detained because his actions led to things that were antithetical to a safe-campus experience, including many Jewish students feeling very threatened.
All of this was done without trial and without Khalil’s ability to defend himself.
Conflicting Values
Now, I’m conflicted for the following reasons.
On one hand, if someone despises Israel and causes harm to my people, instinctively and logically, I’m happy to say, “Screw the bastard. Let him rot where he came from.”
But the world is so much more complicated than that!
There are other values I care very deeply about as well. Free speech. Open and honest dialogue. The rule of law and the right to fair trial and representation.
Fact is, if you can deport someone with ease because you don’t like his views or the outcome of shouting those views, only bad will come from this. Why? Because today someone is shut down because he disagrees with you. Tomorrow someone else will be in charge, and those who agree with you will be shut down. And ultimately everyone’s voices will be taken away.
If you remove one person’s free speech, in the end you threaten all of our free speech.
So even if you say terrible, vile things, it’s in all of our best interest to defend free speech in almost every way it manifests itself.
Free Speech Absolutist?
But it’s not that simple. Not even close.
Some points and questions to consider before I move forward:
I’m pretty darn close to a free speech absolutist. But I do believe the most central limitations to free speech are reasonable and essential.
So, for example, free speech is basically irrelevant in a private setting. I have the right to dictate what cannot be said in my own home and my boss can dictate what cannot be said at his company.
Endangering the public is also not allowed. I may not wander into the mall and jokingly scream “terrorist”. This would likely cause a panic, lots of frantic running, and someone is bound to get badly hurt. So it’s also outside the parameters of permitted speech.
And finally, and most importantly, I cannot encourage violence. I cannot motivate people to take up arms and overthrow the local Walmart.
Yes, free speech is an essential element of the kind of society I want to be a part of. However, all freedoms come with logical limitations. And these are all very important for keeping a society safe and sound.
So the first step is understanding that whereas free speech is paramount, it is not and never can be fully absolute.
I Want to be an American Idiot
The next thing that must be understood is the rights of non-citizens.
These are murky waters. Now, I am by no means a scholar of the legal rights of non-citizens. But I think we all intuitively understand that the rights of a citizen are more robust than that of a non-citizen. But how different those rights are seems to be a big source of the argument at hand. Are non-citizens entitled to the same privileges of free speech? What about due process? I have seen people argue Mahmoud Khalil’s rights are identical to those of citizens. Others argue his rights are basically non-existent. And I’ve seen just about everything in between as well!
Nevertheless, it also seems intuitive that everyone is entitled to at least some level of due process. Otherwise the government can just detain or deport whomever it chooses with as little justification as it wants. And that’s a really dangerous territory to enter.
But just as intuitive, at least to me, is that the United States has the ability, if not the obligation, to revoke any and all rights of those for whom they have evidence are an actual threat to those who are 100% citizens.
And that send us back to the beginning of the discussion.
What Did Mahmoud Khalil Do?
Was Mahmoud Khalil just an ordinary person shouting his political beliefs he has (basically) every right to express? Or was he violating US laws, thus justifying any actions taken by the government to protect its citizens?
I’ll say first off: It’s hard to find direct evidence of violence (or other blatantly illegal activities) and it’s just as hard to find obvious examples of him inciting others to do things most decent people would consider absolutely unacceptable (like harming or intimidating other students).
And I think I should state that I, and many others, believe that if there is any evidence whatsoever of him doing these things, then great. Conversation is over. Detain or deport his ass. He broke the law and thus forfeited his status in the country.
But if that evidence exists, it has not been made public.
And that is a crying shame.
But not all problematic breeches of free speech are clear or direct. So I wanted to take a moment to chat about things that could be considered incitement, depending on intention and a few other factors.
What Does “Free Palestine” Mean?
So, I’d like to take a moment to explore word choices, and how they might impact this discussion.
There are two related phrases I want to explore: “Free Palestine” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.”
These are common, everyday battle cries of those on one side of the Israel debate. But I think they are both frequently misunderstood, and are often said out of a combination of ignorance and a bit of brain washing, rather than knowledge.
“Free Palestine” is a phrase the average left-leaning Westerner uses to mean that the native Arabs of the region should be freed from the oppression put upon them by the aggressive Israelis. Now we can argue at length about whether or not that oppression or aggression actually exists. I do not believe they do, and my literal daily experience supports my beliefs.
But I don’t think that’s what those in the know actually mean when they say “Free Palestine”. When the extremist Islamist says these words, what he means is the region has been given to the Arabs by God Himself, and thus they have the right to every inch of the land. In fact, “from the River to the Sea” is simply an explanation of the area they demand full control over.
What Does Freedom Look Like?
And what would occur if the Arabs achieved such “freedom”? What would happen to the Jews living in Israel?
One of three possibilities (or some combo):
a. Expulsion
b. Second-class status
c. Or full-on murder
Odds are, at this stage in history, a group like Hamas would take over full control of the land, and option C would be the likely outcome. There would be a mass slaughter of the Jewish population.
So, if I’m correct, “Free Palestine” is hardly an innocent statement. It’s an outright call to either oppress or massacre Jews! And if that’s the case, it’s clear incitement to violence, and not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
So What About Mahmoud Khalil?
Now remember:
I don’t think the average college student in America wants to murder anyone. And I think many sincerely believe their words to be peaceful (or they have absolutely no understanding of what they’re saying).
But the same cannot be said of Mahmoud Khalil.
We might not have direct evidence of him inciting violence. He’s not on film calling on people to “kill the Jews”, nor is he shouting “Jihad” repeatedly.
But he was certainly a campus leader pulling people to angrily protest Israel, using phrases like those “innocent” ones mentioned earlier.
We Need Oppositional Voices
So where does that leave me?
I would hate to deny people the right to protest on campuses. I would hate to deny anyone their free speech. And I’m also loathe to taking away oppositional voices. I know to some it sounds illogical. But I want to be around those who disagree with me. I need them. Our silly little echo chambers don’t challenge us enough. And they cause us to be smug and overly confident in what we believe. We need to be surrounded at all times by multiple educated points of view. Otherwise we stagnate and stop thinking.
And that would be tragic.
But people also need to be safe. And laws need to be followed.
Where Do We Stand?
If there’s real, inarguable evidence that Mahmoud Khalil used violent language, then I am more than happy with his detention or deportation.
If his only actions were the use of language that some find objectionable, and all he wanted was just to express support for the people of Gaza, then I think his detention is a giant breach of free speech.
But lacking direct evidence, then it all comes down to the intention behind these perhaps ambiguous statements. If he is encouraging others to say “kill the Jews”, but he is just disguising the words in language many misunderstand, I think the case is fairly clear cut. He is overstepping his bounds and breaking the law. And thus forfeiting his rights.
But I can’t imagine that would be in any way easy to prove.
