Conspiracy Theories

[pErvinalia]

Cunt is. I know it.

[rainbow]

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly.

You know perfectly well.

Talking about the massacre of Gazan children.

I expect you're OK with that?

[Cunt]

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly. He can still talk after he goes home, so I don't know why it's a free speech issue.

How many lawyers do you think he has? When you say 'peaceful protests', why did they need a negotiator? Were they peacefully blocking traffic, or interfering with some students?

But still, I don't know what he's been silenced about...is it like the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard? Too embarrassing to talk about?

The violation of Khalil's rights has been laid out in my posts. Given your apparently skittish relation with information, I suggested you check sources you trust rather than mainstream news media. Either you don't care enough about free speech to check the facts, or the sources you trust have been silent on the issue. If the latter, doesn't that raise just a little suspicion that they're steering clear of it for a reason?

From what you've written it seems you really don't grasp the concept of free speech as protected by the US Constitution. For one thing it is a right held not only by citizens. The Constitution protects the rights of people within the borders of the United States, not just citizens.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

...

The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens’ speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens’ property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

...

In reality, the vast majority of rights outlined in the Constitution are phrased as general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people — be they citizens or some other group.

[source]

With every evasive reply you demonstrate that you're unwilling to consider even the possibility that Khalil's free speech is being suppressed. It happens that this suppression is blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't expect you to care about that. Something you've said that you do care about is free speech. You've been demonstrating that your repeated claims to hold free speech as an important principle have been nothing but empty blather. Well done, you.

It might be supressed, and evicting him might be politically motivated. But he'll be allowed to speak, back in his home country.

The evicting is always opposed by lefties, so I'm not surprised they fan outrage over this.

Or that you don't consider what is happening to universities, as illustrated by the famous Harvard 'fake and Gay' scandal.

I wonder to what extent the trusted media outlets of so-called free speech absolutist are complaining about the 22 Columbia students who've been expelled, suspended or had their degrees revoked at the behest of the Trump administration for protesting against Israel's war in Gaza? Surely they must apoplectic with rage, eh?

Were they protesting? Or supporting a terrorist organization?

Was it a peaceful protest? Or was it blocking access to classes for paying customers?

When the media called the BLM riots 'mostly peaceful protests', it made me highly suspicious of their framing. Almost like 'protest' and 'riot' are used politically, rather than as descriptors.

[Cunt]

Getting back to interesting conspiracy theories, here is one...maybe more.
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1901149242120695842

Joe Rogan and Elon Musk point out the INSANE details surrounding the Butler, Pennsylvania Donald Trump assassination attempt shooter

- The assassins house was PROFESSIONALLY scrubbed
- His home was scrubbed so well there wasn’t even silverware left in the home
- No footprint on the internet
- No social media footprint (completely wiped)
- He was in a BlackRock commercial
- Joe Rogan says some individuals inside BlackRock may have “recognized that it's beneficial to them if he gets assassinated”
- There was never a formal report
- There was never press conferences where they detailed all the information they know currently and where the investigation stands at the moment
- He was a very young g kid there with a rangefinder (used to measure distances, very suspicious)
- CNN streamed it live, which Joe Rogan does not believe they did for any other rally. And certainly not for a rally that's in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania
- They wouldn't let people be on that roof because the Secret service lady said it was sloped and it was dangerous
- The snipers that were on the other roof was a, a steeper pitch (It made no f*cking sense)
- Random people saw him and pointed him out on the roof with a gun for a long time before it happened
- The kid had 5 phones
- His body was immediately cremated
- There was some indications that there was a phone that had been traveling from outside the FBI offices in D.C to where this kid lived multiple times

We need answers.

https://x.com/i/status/1901149242120695842

What do you guys believe about it? Was Trump even the target? Or was the EMT the target?

[Brian Peacock]

...

I wonder to what extent the trusted media outlets of so-called free speech absolutist are complaining about the 22 Columbia students who've been expelled, suspended or had their degrees revoked at the behest of the Trump administration for protesting against Israel's war in Gaza? Surely they must apoplectic with rage, eh?

Were they protesting? Or supporting a terrorist organization?

Was it a peaceful protest? Or was it blocking access to classes for paying customers?

When the media called the BLM riots 'mostly peaceful protests', it made me highly suspicious of their framing. Almost like 'protest' and 'riot' are used politically, rather than as descriptors.

Why would a free speech absolutist be bothered about a person's politics? Surely it's the absolute right to free speech that's important and a person's politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether should be allowed protest or express their opinions?

[Cunt]

...

I wonder to what extent the trusted media outlets of so-called free speech absolutist are complaining about the 22 Columbia students who've been expelled, suspended or had their degrees revoked at the behest of the Trump administration for protesting against Israel's war in Gaza? Surely they must apoplectic with rage, eh?

Were they protesting? Or supporting a terrorist organization?

Was it a peaceful protest? Or was it blocking access to classes for paying customers?

When the media called the BLM riots 'mostly peaceful protests', it made me highly suspicious of their framing. Almost like 'protest' and 'riot' are used politically, rather than as descriptors.

Why would a free speech absolutist be bothered about a person's politics? Surely it's the absolute right to free speech that's important and a person's politics has absolutely nothing to do with whether should be allowed protest or express their opinions?

Free speech can be done in places other than the USA, so this individual, who got hisself kicked out, can still have their free speech.

I think having his law training, he should have known his situation was a bit precarious, but law training ain't what it was cracked up to be (as shown by Harvard's fake and Gay scandal and it's consequences)

[rainbow]

Free speech can be done in places other than the USA, so this individual, who got hisself kicked out, can still have their free speech.

We are talking about free speech in the US.

Are you really as stupid as you appear from your comments?

[Cunt]

This chap who is being kicked out for breaching the conditions of his immigration invitation...did he happen to say whether he supports queers for palestine?

The conflict there reminds me of a conspiracy accident (I hope it is an accident)

Some cultures think showing the bottom of their shoe, or walking on a friendly flag, is disrepspectful. Also they don't treat the gays well.

Another culture thinks the shoe thing is irrelevant, and treats the gays as well as anyone.

Put a gay flag painting on the ground, and both will celebrate walking on it, for different reasons.

Same screen, 2 movies.

[rainbow]

This chap who is being kicked out for breaching the conditions of his immigration invitation...did he happen to say whether he supports queers for palestine?

Does Elon?
It appears as if he hasn't been supportive of his trans daughter.

Kick him out as well.

At least be consistent.+

[pErvinalia]

I still don't know what he isn't allowed to say. It seems he was granted a privilege, not citizenship, and he was seen to be behaving badly. He can still talk after he goes home, so I don't know why it's a free speech issue.

How many lawyers do you think he has? When you say 'peaceful protests', why did they need a negotiator? Were they peacefully blocking traffic, or interfering with some students?

But still, I don't know what he's been silenced about...is it like the 'fake and Gay' scandal at Harvard? Too embarrassing to talk about?

The violation of Khalil's rights has been laid out in my posts. Given your apparently skittish relation with information, I suggested you check sources you trust rather than mainstream news media. Either you don't care enough about free speech to check the facts, or the sources you trust have been silent on the issue. If the latter, doesn't that raise just a little suspicion that they're steering clear of it for a reason?

From what you've written it seems you really don't grasp the concept of free speech as protected by the US Constitution. For one thing it is a right held not only by citizens. The Constitution protects the rights of people within the borders of the United States, not just citizens.

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.

...

The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring noncitizens’ speech or suppressing the practice of their religion. The Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment ensures that noncitizens’ property can only be taken by the government for a public use, and only if just compensation is paid.

Should a noncitizen be charged with a crime, he has exactly the same Fifth and Sixth Amendment procedural rights as a citizen, including the right to a jury trial, the right to counsel, and protection against self-incrimination. If convicted, the Eighth Amendment prevents the government from subjecting aliens to “cruel and unusual punishment” in exactly the same ways as it does with citizens.

...

In reality, the vast majority of rights outlined in the Constitution are phrased as general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people — be they citizens or some other group.

[source]

With every evasive reply you demonstrate that you're unwilling to consider even the possibility that Khalil's free speech is being suppressed. It happens that this suppression is blatantly unconstitutional, but I don't expect you to care about that. Something you've said that you do care about is free speech. You've been demonstrating that your repeated claims to hold free speech as an important principle have been nothing but empty blather. Well done, you.

It might be supressed, and evicting him might be politically motivated. But he'll be allowed to speak, back in his home country.

Again, the first amendment applies inside the US, not back home.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It might be supressed, and evicting him might be politically motivated. But he'll be allowed to speak, back in his home country.

As rainbow and pErv noted, the US Constitution clearly establishes that he has a right to free speech in the United States. That right has been ignored stomped on by the Trumpist government.

The US had been his permanent home. He was jumping through the legal hoops to get full citizenship. In addition, he's married to an American woman and soon will have an American child.

The Trump regime is attempting to railroad him out of the country because he peacefully and lawfully expressed a political opinion. If Biden had done anything along those lines I think you'd be throwing a fit and calling him a fascist.

Seems to me it's been pretty much established now that the principle of free speech doesn't mean all that much to you despite your previous pose of strong support for it.

The evicting is always opposed by lefties, so I'm not surprised they fan outrage over this.

It's about free speech, but it's also about due process. It's the man's right to have his case heard by a judge. The government needs to prove its case against him. But they don't actually have a case, so they're going to dispense with respecting his rights. Do you actually support that sort of thing?

Or that you don't consider what is happening to universities, as illustrated by the famous Harvard 'fake and Gay' scandal.

That seems to be some sort of shibboleth; short-hand for something you consider significant. If you want to discuss it, lay out at least one salient issue you consider noteworthy. It's not as if plagiarism is unheard of in academic circles, but do tell.

[pErvinalia]

I predict he won't. But will keep on saying it.

[Cunt]

It might be supressed, and evicting him might be politically motivated. But he'll be allowed to speak, back in his home country.

As rainbow and pErv noted, the US Constitution clearly establishes that he has a right to free speech in the United States. That right has been ignored stomped on by the Trumpist government.

The US had been his permanent home. He was jumping through the legal hoops to get full citizenship. In addition, he's married to an American woman and soon will have an American child.

The Trump regime is attempting to railroad him out of the country because he peacefully and lawfully expressed a political opinion. If Biden had done anything along those lines I think you'd be throwing a fit and calling him a fascist.

Seems to me it's been pretty much established now that the principle of free speech doesn't mean all that much to you despite your previous pose of strong support for it.

The evicting is always opposed by lefties, so I'm not surprised they fan outrage over this.

It's about free speech, but it's also about due process. It's the man's right to have his case heard by a judge. The government needs to prove its case against him. But they don't actually have a case, so they're going to dispense with respecting his rights. Do you actually support that sort of thing?

Or that you don't consider what is happening to universities, as illustrated by the famous Harvard 'fake and Gay' scandal.

That seems to be some sort of shibboleth; short-hand for something you consider significant. If you want to discuss it, lay out at least one salient issue you consider noteworthy. It's not as if plagiarism is unheard of in academic circles, but do tell.

I've not seen you take any interest in free speech before. Tell me, is this in any way connected to your strong feelings aligning with one side of this middle-east conflict?

[Cunt]

That seems to be some sort of shibboleth; short-hand for something you consider significant. If you want to discuss it, lay out at least one salient issue you consider noteworthy. It's not as if plagiarism is unheard of in academic circles, but do tell.

Shibboleth, eh?

No, not really. Unless you mean in the sense that you have shown you didn't see one of the points.
from the brave search

In December 2023, she testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, where she was asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment. Gay responded that it could depend on the context, sparking widespread criticism.

See, her copying/stealing from academics wasn't the nasty part. The nasty part, her words in front of witnesses, caused people do dig up her shitty academic record, and probably call for her resignation.

Lucky for her, the results of antisemitic comments while speaking for the University, plus lying/copying/plagiarism, didn't result in losing her posh salary. They rotated her out of the highly public role (probably because she's humiliating) but the academics still think she's worth the high price.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've not seen you take any interest in free speech before. Tell me, is this in any way connected to your strong feelings aligning with one side of this middle-east conflict?

That's sweet, I didn't know you cared. You haven't been here much, so your observations don't amount to much. In fact I've regularly written on the topic here, going back for years.

I'm definitely opposed to the genocide that Israel has been perpetrating in Gaza. However, my primary interest in this particular case is how thoroughly it exposes the Trumpist regime for the lawless authoritarian goons that they are. I brought it up with you because I thought it could be a means to discover whether you actually mean it when you say free speech matters to you.

Just noting that past citations of the principle of free speech on your part (for instance claiming that you like Republicans because they're for free speech) are now exposed as empty posturing. Same for any future noise in the same vein.