Local opinion: We must push back against the assault on free speech

We are experiencing a targeted assault on our core democratic principles, values, beliefs, institutions and social support networks.

Blocking legitimate journalists, deleting language, canceling GOP town halls, cutting university funding, defunding government agencies such as the Department of Education, USAID, and cutting back necessary safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans services, all point to a diminished social safety net while our ability to defend and sustain these programs is woefully diminished by attacks on free speech.

These are all connected. Our ability to express ourselves whether through our personal opinions or through our professions is being curtailed and co-opted by the state and undermining a vibrant free speech environment in the United States.

The recent actions of the government in the Mahmoud Khalil case reinforce these concerns. As Jay Caspian Kang writes, “For decades, the bedrock of First Amendment discourse in this country was the belief that we should especially protect speech that we do not like.”

A legal analysis from Immigration and Customs Enforcement completed during President Trump’s first term concluded: “Generally, aliens who reside within the territory of the United States stand on equal footing with U.S. citizens to assert First Amendment liberties.”

Nevertheless, in a social media post Trump pledged that his administration will “find, apprehend, and deport” noncitizens who, in his view, engage in “pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity.”

In Khalil’s case, in particular, Secretary of State Marc Rubio claimed he had the authority to decide if Khalil was to be deported. Even though in most cases such a decision is ordinarily adjudicated in court by an immigration judge after formal charges have been presented and the defendant has been given a full opportunity to present evidence on his or her behalf. Khalil had no such opportunity and was summarily shunted to a prison in Louisiana. A federal judge has intervened to stop any immediate deportation.

Trump made it clear that Khalil’s arrest was directly related to his activism. Indeed, this evolving episode suggests that the Trump administration is using the Khalil case as a pretext for silencing criticism or squelching speech it finds offensive or anathema to its goals. As one analyst observed, “you can’t just use national security as a magic word and make a constitutional problem go away.”

We should not be fooled. Trump’s discourse is pivotal to multiple encroachments on free speech. The president displays a demonstrably fascist pattern as he carves up the regnant order in pursuit of selfish pursuits.

As scholar Stephen Hartnett has explained, there is a distinction to be made between the fascist assault on elites and democratic dissent in that “democratic dissent creates conditions for future deliberation among neighbors while cherishing debate, whereas fascist rhetoric argues that opponents are engaged in treason, hence ending any further need for deliberation and justifying violence against the ‘betrayers.’” In short, “Democratic dissent produces more deliberation, fascist rhetoric ends debate while seeking retribution against scheming others.” Thus, Trump’s direct pledge: “I will be your retribution” is realized in his specific actions that do not exclude violence. An opposing political candidate becomes an “enemy” best suited for incarceration (e.g., Hillary Clinton, “Lock her up!”). A judge issues a ruling against the president, and he responds by calling for the judge’s impeachment. Indeed, Trump’s implied call for violence certainly made him culpable in instigating the January 6th insurrection (“We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”).

In short, our government is making a concerted effort to eliminate speech it doesn’t like or sees as contrary to its political goals. We have a president who privileges his own speech over the rights of people in America who might respectfully disagree, and he is employing the full powers of his presidency to ensure his word prevails. We all have a duty to ensure that our First Amendment is respected and observed because our democracy and our ability to live in harmony is in jeopardy and the stakes are too high to allow a fascist discourse to overcome our comity and displace the rule of law.