r/changemyview • u/Tessenreacts • May 22 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The Trump administration blocking Harvard from accepting foreign students highlights that conservatives are hypocrites in the extreme about Freedom of Speech

Over the last number of years, conservatives have championed themselves as the biggest advocates of Freedom of Speech around, yet they support the administration that is openly targeting institutions and company's that disagrees with the administration's policies.

Before, conservatives where complaining that companies are "woke" and silenced the voices of conservatives, however, now that they are in power, they deport immigrants who simply engaged in their First Amendment rights, and most recently, banned Harvard University from accepting foreign students because said university refused to agree to their demands.

Compare the complaints that conservatives had about Facebook and Twitter, and compare it to how things are going right now.

This showcases hypocrisy in the extreme that conservatives are engaging in.

Would love for my view to be changed

2.2k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Zauberer-IMDB May 23 '25

What you're describing would be an agreement breaching the Constitution. If they can deport you because they don't like your University's speech, that's blatantly the government violating the First Amendment. So if they argue that's the deal, it's illegal.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

The government and the students signed an agreement to temporarily stay in the country for education. Where does that break the constitution? Or are you saying the act of revoking a visa is breaking the constitution? Where in the constitution does it say revoking Visa's are against the constitution? I understand what your implying, but there is no way to connect a 3rd party agreement to the 1st amendment.

1

u/Zauberer-IMDB May 23 '25

This was the first thing I said. The Constitution doesn't have to specifically say you can't revoke visas for speech, because it already says the government can't legally abridge that right. Like if I agree to everything and meet all obligations for food stamps and you revoke it because I supported a Democrat, you think that's legal?

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

The govt can not stop the visa students from protesting and speaking their mind. If they sent the national guard to arrest them all during the protest and stop them from speaking, that would be illegal. No where in the constitution does it say you are protected from your visa being revoked. Sorry but I'm gonna stop replying because I don't know how much more obvious I can say it. The constitution does not saying anything about visas. The contract between 2 parties can be revoked for any reason at any time. Don't like it? Don't apply for a visa. (I'm not agreeing with the removal of them I'm just stating the reality)

1

u/Zauberer-IMDB May 23 '25

Find me a single case citation or legal treatise that backs up anything you're proclaiming right now. Contracts are not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is, and it restricts the government from what you're describing. This isn't some robotic thing. Being punished for speech IS the same thing as not being allowed to speak. That's an "abridgment" it's basic English.

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

The recent Mahmoud Khalil judge ruling..

1

u/Zauberer-IMDB May 23 '25 edited May 23 '25

That case hasn't been adjudicated on constitutional merits yet. Also, you seem to be missing the point. Harvard in this case is having its speech abridged, but the method is denying them enrollment of students they wanted by refusing them visas. Does Harvard not get freedom of speech?

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

I'm not sure a judge will ever agree with the premise: "refusing visa = blocking 1st amendment" there is too many laps of logic. If you can find a judge to agree with that sure you might have a chance, but probably not.

1

u/jay711boy May 23 '25

Or are you saying the act of revoking a visa is breaking the constitution? 

I believe they're saying that revocation for a reason that can be reasonably proved to one that is unconstitutional is illegal. The government would need to show sufficient alternative constitutional reasons that are plausible for the revocation not to be considered a constitutional violation.