Comment by vkou

Comment by vkou 8 days ago

18 replies

View on Hacker News

One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.

The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)

It's odd that one ban operates within the constraints of freedom (the freedom to associate requires the exercise of the freedom to not associate), while the other does not. It's almost like there's a categorical distinction.

It's utterly pointless to say that the starting point is the same, when one is an utter sabotage of all of society's rights and values... While the other is people affirming those rights.

themaninthedark 8 days ago

>(The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)

As one of the 'Free Speech folks', I'll bite.

I absolutely condemn the administration rounding up someone like Mahmoud Khalil if the only thing he did was speak a rallies. If you look up Uncivil Law's video on Mahmoud Khalil Deportation, he is saying the same thing.

Now, let's flip this around. Where are all my left wing friends willing to condemn the investigation into Trump for his Jan. 6th speech? Are you willing to join us now?

Reply View 2 replies
  • vkou 8 days ago

    The speech isn't why he would go to prison in a just world (that would be Georgia, the fake electors, and the toilet paper documents), and the impeachment that was a consequence of the speech is always a purely political trial. Someone can be impeached for any reason and no reason whatsoever, that is unfortunately how the system is designed. Two kinds of justice, with a few batshit SCOTUS rulings that make a criminal president unprosecutable as long as 34 senators are willing to go to bat for him.

    It's not his speech that gave him trouble with the DOJ (before he dismissed all charges against himself), it's all the other parts of his conspiracy to steal the election.

    Notice how none of the talking heads on TV were in legal trouble over their speech on the matter.

    Every one of the cases against him had a bit more to it than 'well he said some bad words', the same way that a conman doesn't go to prison just for saying some bad words, or the same way that a war criminal gets a noose, despite simply saying words - giving orders.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • themaninthedark 8 days ago

      Wrong.

      Yesterday the House January 6 Committee unanimously voted to recommend that former President Donald Trump be criminally prosecuted, for charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an act of Congress, and, the most serious, insurrection. A congressional criminal referral of a former president is unprecedented, and if Special Counsel Jack Smith and the Department of Justice decide to prosecute Trump, they will have to address a formidable defense: that Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021, no matter how irresponsible or how full of lies about a “stolen” 2020 election, was, after all, a political speech and thus protected by the First Amendment.

      Prominent legal scholars—and one lower-court judge—have rejected that argument, countering that Trump’s speech, in which he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” was sufficiently inflammatory to permit criminal prosecution.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/january-6-...

      When Congress' January 6 select committee asked the Justice Department to prosecute Trump in connection to the Capitol riot

      >https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-january-6-criminal-ind...

      Here is some other ink that has been spilled on the topic as well:

      >Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riot https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55656385

      >Trump ‘lit that fire’ of Capitol insurrection, Jan 6 Committee report says https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-lit-that-fire-of...

      >Trump incites mob in violent end to presidency | CNN Politics https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/donald-trump-capitol...

      So I will ask again, Do you condemn all those who called for Trumps prosecution for his Jan 6th speech?

      I still call the charges and prosecution of Mahmoud Khalil as a first amendment violation, why will you not join me?

      Or, do you believe that Trump incited the Jan. 6th riots? If so then the same fact pattern holds for Mahmoud Khalil.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/04/30/p...

      Reply View 0 replies
robertlagrant 8 days ago

> One ban consists of the exercise of their right to... Not associate with you.

Many people have been fired / expelled / and many more silenced by those examples. If you can't tell the truth about your side (from how you're writing I assume you think in sides) then there's no point saying it.

> The other sends you to a Salvadoran gulag. (The silence from all the 'free speech' folks on this point is deafening.)

I haven't heard about this. Who has been sent to a Salvadoran gulag for speech?

Reply View 14 replies
  • cess11 8 days ago

    There's been a lot in usian news about people having been deported because of things like tattoo of the logo of some spanish or other soccer club.

    Here's one case where the deportation seems to be based mainly on having worn sports branded merch and a hoodie, and some supposed anonymous snitch, which the state has agreed was an error:

    https://www.newsweek.com/kilmar-armando-abrego-garcia-deport...

    Reply View 3 replies
    • theultdev 8 days ago

      they agreed it was an error, to send him to that particular prison, not out of the country in general.

      he is an illegal and his deportation defense in 2019 was he feared for his life from a "rival gang" indicating he was in the MS-13 gang that the feds and judge found him to be part of.

      he's not just some "father", as the left leaning news likes to portray. he participated in human trafficking and himself admitted he was a gang member.

      it seemed that the left did not care about vetting when gang members were coming into the country.

      ...but now they're being deported, it seems vetting is crucial (which is being done, but you're not always privy to (or aware of) the information)

      and "anonymous snitch" is quite derogatory. you do know how evil MS-13 is right? listen to yourself.

      they chop people up without blinking an eye. the fact someone risked their life to "snitch" saved so many people. this isn't playground shit.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • sjsdaiuasgdia 8 days ago

        He's not illegal, he had protected status.

        What precisely changed between the granting of that protected status and his arrest that warranted the change of status?

        Reply View 0 replies
      • cess11 8 days ago

        It's borderline insane to call Newsweek "left leaning".

        'His attorneys claimed, and ICE later confirmed, that the only verification came from a form filled out by the Prince George County Police Department, which based his membership on the fact that "he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie; and that a confidential informant advised that he was an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique" – a group based out of Long Island, New York.'

        The state has confirmed to the press that it doesn't have any evidence of the claims you're making.

        MS-13 is less evil than the Biden and current Trump administrations, who are guilty of genocide. I think you're part of an attempt to distract from that and other crimes, as well as the ongoing turmoil in the financial system.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • aswanson 8 days ago

    Is wearing an "autism awareness " tattoo considered speech?

    Reply View 0 replies
  • immibis 8 days ago

    I agree that at-will employment is a problem. So is a lack of safety nets. Do you know who supports at-will employment and a lack of safety nets?

    Reply View 0 replies
  • vkou 8 days ago

    If the past decade is any indication, nothing has stopped the long list of cancelled right wing grifters, racists, and various other flavors of fools and bigots from finding gainful employment and signal boosting and platforming among like-minded people who do exercise their right to associate with them, despite their behavior.

    For (allegedly) being so persecuted and silenced, it's weird how so many of them have so much more power, reach, and wealth than ever before.

    Perhaps getting booed at in the last college campus they held a rally at is not quite the yellow star, or the mark of Cain that they convinced you it is.

    Reply View 7 replies
    • Edman274 8 days ago

      If the argument is that it's not a big deal because it doesn't even work, then why collectively are we even bothering? Either it works and is something for reactionaries to fear and is effective social pressure, or it's a bunch of ineffective sound and fury that gives cover to your right wing aunt to tell stories about how "someone she knows" got fired for telling a joke. If it works, then let's own it completely, with all its flaws. If it doesn't work, then why bother at all? If it doesn't even work, then why try to defend the practice? Do we want it to work? Do we want it to be an effective form of social control?

      Reply View 0 replies
    • pclmulqdq 8 days ago

      In the past decade, the left got so cancel-happy that "cancellation" by the left-wing activist crowd lost pretty much all of its weight among anyone who isn't an ideologue. In 2016-2018, if you got canceled, you would have a very hard time finding any white-collar job afterward.

      Reply View 5 replies