On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:37:23 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Call it a whitewash, because it is. These students are being punished
for voicing support of Palestine ...which you can't even morph into
"hate speech". All you can muster is 'what-aBiden-ism' and some vague
ad hominem about my "constant opposition". Suffice to suppose that, if
this deportation initiative were Democratic, you'd be apoplectic.

Uh you don't think "From the river to the sea..." is hate speech? It
ONLY calls both for the destruction of Israel but the deaths of all
those within it. Given the current population of Israel that would be
able double Hitler's score.

And DON'T tell me that it's not about extermination but something else
cause that's horsesh**.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 12:15:04 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Illegal aliens burn an American flag while waving foreign flags during a
protest against the deportations in Oxnard, CA

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1885864749939687424/vid/avc1/776x436/oWF3Ku_A0fP4_y4z.mp4?tag=16

So... they burn *our* flag, while waving *their* flag, because they love
living in *our* country so much they don't want to go back to *their* country?
Did I get that right?

Get 'em the hell outta here.

Indeed, *their* country would hang them for publicly burning its flag.
Yeah, let's be more like that...

Having had 'one of those days' my first response was 'yeah - and
parachute optional' so it sounds like we're on the same page.

Bottom line is that anybody that wants to convert the US, UK, Canada
etc to their preferred form of government makes me wonder why they
wanted to leave their country of origin for ours in the first place.

We must be doing SOMETHING right eh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:04:29 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

The Canadian government recently prevented a "Caliphate" conference in
the Metro Toronto area - they weren't heavy handed but they did
enforce security conditions that caused the organizers to cancel it.

Note that this conference was about extending Muslim rule world wide -
it was not merely support for HAMAS and/or Gaza.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hizb-ut-tahrir-canada

(Note that the Canadian group was closely affiliated with the UK group
mentioned in the headline)

I'll guess that the proposed means of "extending Muslim rule" drifted
into violent fatwas against the Great Satan.

You know any other way to convert the United States of America into a
"sharia state"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 12:49 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 16:04:29 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

The Canadian government recently prevented a "Caliphate" conference in
the Metro Toronto area - they weren't heavy handed but they did
enforce security conditions that caused the organizers to cancel it.

Note that this conference was about extending Muslim rule world wide -
it was not merely support for HAMAS and/or Gaza.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/hizb-ut-tahrir-canada

(Note that the Canadian group was closely affiliated with the UK group
mentioned in the headline)

I'll guess that the proposed means of "extending Muslim rule" drifted
into violent fatwas against the Great Satan.

You know any other way to convert the United States of America into a
"sharia state"?

My confidence in U.S. resistance to such conversions is lately tested...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 12:47 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:37:23 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Call it a whitewash, because it is. These students are being punished
for voicing support of Palestine ...which you can't even morph into
"hate speech". All you can muster is 'what-aBiden-ism' and some vague
ad hominem about my "constant opposition". Suffice to suppose that, if
this deportation initiative were Democratic, you'd be apoplectic.

Uh you don't think "From the river to the sea..." is hate speech? It
ONLY calls both for the destruction of Israel but the deaths of all
those within it. Given the current population of Israel that would be
able double Hitler's score.

And DON'T tell me that it's not about extermination but something else
cause that's horsesh**.

"Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it "a call for peace and
equality" after decades of military rule over Palestinians, while for
many Jews it is seen as a call for the destruction of Israel."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

(What I'LL tell you is that 'free speech' can require accommodations
that are indeed patently ridiculous, but necessary.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian". Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech. (I.e., one
could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel Aviv.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14:07 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian". Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech.

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free speech rights.

(I.e., one could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel Aviv.)

And one could support those goals without expressing support for Hamas but
they choose to do the latter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/5/2025 9:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14:07 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the
original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian".
Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech.

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free speech rights.

I'm *always* worried about free-speech rights, as well as about a
president who knows no better than to fuck with them, even distantly.

(I.e., one could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel >> Aviv.)

And one could support those goals without expressing support for Hamas but they choose to do the latter.

Well, you may have a point. E.g., although the swastika has many
original meanings, the Western world seems settled on just the one.

Still, free-speech *would* have to allow, say, a scholarly treatise
detailing a Middle East with no Israel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 19:14:07 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the >original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian". >Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech. (I.e., one
could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel Aviv.)

The trouble with that is that not all Muslim groups that are
pro-violence (like the 'Kalifate' group that tried to hold a
convention in Toronto) are pro-HAMAS. There are plenty of groups that
are not at all about co-existing peacefully in Europe and North
America - and plenty more individuals (such as certain Pakistanis in
Leeds) who are most unwelcome for reasons other than advocacy or
actually taking part in political violence.

For instance those who spray painted the statue of Winston Churchill
(Which has been done several times, most recently on November 11th
last year) should have been apprehended and immediately deported - and
if holders of 'landed immigrant status' should have had that status
revoked THEN deported.

https://www.alamy.com/the-statue-of-churchill-in-parliament-square-defaced-during-the-anti-image525277.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens >who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free >speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would
certainly win - but defending a suit still costs mucho dineros.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free >> speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been challenged and found to be constitutional.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 02 Feb 2025 08:57:23 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jan 29, 2025 at 8:37:20 PM PST, "moviePig"<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

Illegal aliens burn an American flag while waving foreign flags during a protest against the deportations in Oxnard, CA

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1885864749939687424/vid/avc1/776x436/oWF3Ku_A0fP4_y4z.mp4?tag=16

So... they burn *our* flag, while waving *their* flag, because they love living in *our* country so much they don't want to go back to *their* country?
Did I get that right?

That video shows no violations of free speech.

Get 'em the hell outta here.

The immigration crises will not be solved by supporting Israel
but by opposing it. Israel has always been on the side of
forcing migration into the West, under the theory that
racial violence against whites will strangle antisemitism.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:52:29 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14:07 PM PST, "moviePig"<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian". Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech.

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free speech rights.

(I.e., one could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel Aviv.)

And one could support those goals without expressing support for Hamas but they choose to do the latter.

Bogus! You've implied it is impossible to criticize Israel without
supporting Hamas, so by implication it is a terrorist act to
simply say the words that "Israel is not good"!

It could be reasonably assumed that Israel Is Not Good because
it's supporters are so arrogant and daily dish out the death threat
worldwide that disagreeing with Israel is murder, just like any other
criminal gang.

Sorry, like it or not, valid political ideas include opposition
to Israel!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/6/2025 8:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free >>> speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would
certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment? ...to be visited only
upon persons of precarious status?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 6, 2025 at 6:49:10 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Feb 2025 08:57:23 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jan 29, 2025 at 8:37:20 PM PST, "moviePig"<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian
protesters"


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

Illegal aliens burn an American flag while waving foreign flags during a
protest against the deportations in Oxnard, CA


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1885864749939687424/vid/avc1/776x436/oWF3Ku_A0fP4_y4z.mp4?tag=16

So... they burn *our* flag, while waving *their* flag, because they love
living in *our* country so much they don't want to go back to *their*
country?
Did I get that right?

That video shows no violations of free speech.

Who said it did?

The video does, however, show multiple violations of 8 USC § 1101. (Along with a lot of hypocrisy.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:57:21 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/6/2025 8:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote: >>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident >>>> aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free
speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would
certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from
publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been
challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment?

Yes.

...to be visited only upon persons of precarious status?

If their status is so precarious, maybe they should refrain from publicly supporting terrorist organizations, knowing that doing so can get them deported.

At what point do we hold grown adults responsible for the consequences of
their own actions?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:02:46 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:52:29 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14:07 PM PST, "moviePig"<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian >>>>> protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the
original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian".
Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech.

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident
aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free >> speech rights.

(I.e., one could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel
Aviv.)

And one could support those goals without expressing support for Hamas but >> they choose to do the latter.

Bogus! You've implied it is impossible to criticize Israel without
supporting Hamas

I have done no such thing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

plutedpup@outlook.com wrote:

The immigration crises will not be solved by supporting Israel
but by opposing it. Israel has always been on the side of
forcing migration into the West, under the theory that
racial violence against whites will strangle antisemitism.

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:00:46 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:02:46 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:52:29 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 5, 2025 at 4:14:07 PM PST, "moviePig"<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>

On 2/5/2025 6:32 PM, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:37:20 -0800, moviePig wrote:

"Trump administration to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian >>>>>> protesters"

Egregious, but no where is that quote in the article you cited:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-cancel-student-visas-all-hamas-sympathizers-white-house-2025-01-29/

That article appears to be about whether Trump wants to
militarily invade Palestine to expel the people from Gaza.

Interesting. Looks like Reuters may have retracted (incompetently) the >>> > original article, which was headlined as I quoted. The new emphasis
would now appear to be on "pro-Hamas" rather than "pro-Palestinian".
Regardless, it still smacks of curtailment of free speech.

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident
aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free
speech rights.

(I.e., one could support *some* of Hamas's stated goals without bombing Tel
Aviv.)

And one could support those goals without expressing support for Hamas but >>> they choose to do the latter.

Bogus! You've implied it is impossible to criticize Israel without
supporting Hamas

I have done no such thing.

I have heard some people say such a thing. So it must be true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 22:57:21 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from
publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been
challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment? ...to be visited only
upon persons of precarious status?

Either they have the right to be in the country or they do not. If the
former then they should be welcomed with open arms. If not it should
be 'don't let the door hit you on the way out'

If I routinely drive 30 mph above the local speed limit and get pulled
over do I have the right to go on doing so after being apprehended? Or
do I get a sentence designed to discourage me from continuing to do
so?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/7/2025 1:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:57:21 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/6/2025 8:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident >>>>> aliens
who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about their free
speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would >>>> certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from >>> publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been >>> challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment?

Yes.

What's the law (or executive order)?

...to be visited only upon persons of precarious status?

If their status is so precarious, maybe they should refrain from publicly supporting terrorist organizations, knowing that doing so can get them deported.

At what point do we hold grown adults responsible for the consequences of their own actions?

Maybe they're stupid. But free speech isn't afforded to only geniuses.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Feb 7, 2025 at 12:30:52 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/7/2025 1:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:57:21 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/6/2025 8:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>> wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident >>>>>> aliens who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about >>>>>> their free
speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would >>>>> certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from >>>> publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been >>>> challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment?

Yes.

What's the law (or executive order)?

There are so many AI portals out there now that it's becoming ridiculous for you to constantly ask me to do your legal research for you.

I'm a licensed attorney. I get paid for legal research (at least until AI replaces me). Send me your Venmo and after I get $400 for my one-hour minimum fee, I'll wade through the federal code and find the citation for you.

...to be visited only upon persons of precarious status?

If their status is so precarious, maybe they should refrain from publicly >> supporting terrorist organizations, knowing that doing so can get them
deported.

At what point do we hold grown adults responsible for the consequences of >> their own actions?

Maybe they're stupid. But free speech isn't afforded to only geniuses.

But the consequences of that speech are afforded to everyone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/7/2025 5:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 7, 2025 at 12:30:52 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 2/7/2025 1:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 7:57:21 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>

On 2/6/2025 8:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 6, 2025 at 5:04:14 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>> wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 02:52:29 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:

So even when they clarify that they're only going after those resident
aliens who support a terrorist organization, you're still worried about
their free
speech rights.

Or simply to avoid the cost of defending a law suit which they would >>>>>> certainly win

The wouldn't certainly win it. The law prohibiting resident aliens from
publicly supporting designated terrorist organization has already been
challenged and found to be constitutional.

Does that law specify deportation as punishment?

Yes.

What's the law (or executive order)?

There are so many AI portals out there now that it's becoming ridiculous for you to constantly ask me to do your legal research for you.

I'm a licensed attorney. I get paid for legal research (at least until AI replaces me). Send me your Venmo and after I get $400 for my one-hour minimum fee, I'll wade through the federal code and find the citation for you.

I encountered ambiguity when I looked it up ...hence my reference to
"law or executive order". Meanwhile, because you appear certain that it specifies 'deportation', I thought it likely you'd have the cite off the
top of your head, especially if it's recent.

...to be visited only upon persons of precarious status?

If their status is so precarious, maybe they should refrain from publicly >>> supporting terrorist organizations, knowing that doing so can get them >>> deported.

At what point do we hold grown adults responsible for the consequences of >>> their own actions?

Maybe they're stupid. But free speech isn't afforded to only geniuses.

But the consequences of that speech are afforded to everyone.

I don't know whether you mean the consequences of speaking or the
consequences of what's said. I'd ask, but I don't have a spare $400...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)