By The Rocket Staff
“These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you,” George Orwell said in an unpublished 1945 introduction to “Animal Farm.”
A common trope among the Trump coalition over the past eight years was lambasting cancel culture and proposed speech laws centered around the ever-ambiguous idea of “hate speech,” claiming it inhibited the “silent majority.”
Although the idea brings up legitimate arguments surrounding what we consider free speech, the exact same tactics they were just denouncing are exactly what is crushing freedoms now.
Blocking access to buildings, assault or other illegal measures are obviously subject to legal action and denunciation. But many of these cases deal strictly with wrongthink, misaligned with the “interests” of the United States.
Like criticisms about Israel’s war efforts or not, they are protected under the First Amendment.
The idea of targeting a legal resident’s speech, simply because they are not a citizen, is counter to the cultural storytelling of the Cold War. It was argued, and still is, that American institutions, especially universities, are superior due to their varied viewpoints and free marketplaces of ideas counter to the homogenous and state-sponsored views of authoritarian institutions.
Rümeysa Öztürk of Tufts University was recently detained with zero evidence of wrongdoing, at least according to recently obtained internal State Department memos.
In Öztürk’s case the Trump administration stated she “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization” based off a 2024 op-ed she co-authored calling for Tufts do divest from Israel.
Yet the internal State Department memo obtained by the Washington Post stated ICE had no evidence of ties to terrorism or antisemitism.
Although it brings up concerns about how Trump will carry out deportations in general, the pressing matter is free expression for students.
To have views that “align” with Hamas is, once again, a trick from the same playbook used to smear critics, mostly conservative and a part of the Trump coalition, who are opposed to further support for Ukraine.
“If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
In their invasion of Ukraine, Russia has killed plenty of innocent women, men and children. Recent statistics from the United Nations suggest at least 12,300 Ukrainian civilians were killed so far, including a range of 60,000 to 100,000 deaths of Ukrainian soldiers.
There has been no revocation of visas based on the premise of opposing sanctions on Russia or withdrawing support for Ukraine as the slaughter continues.
The only difference between the two cases is the replacement of “Hamas sympathizer” with “Russian sympathizer,” arguing the idea of having a view dissenting from the norm is considered support of the other side.
The arrests were justified under circumstances surrounding section 212(1)(3)(B)(i)(VII) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The law is based off a Bush and PATRIOT Act-era alteration rendering inadmissible to any non-U.S. person who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity.”
It is very vague, likely on purpose, allowing unprecedented maneuverability for the executive branch and an obvious tipping of the checks and balances of the three branches of American government.
Although these infringements on due process have been decried by the ACLU and other legal advocates for decades since the PATRIOT Act under presidents Bush through Biden, they have largely flown under the radar until now, where they are hitting a lot closer to home.
Why care?
Because criticism of our own country’s foreign policy should be respected in a democratic society.
There is also a stark difference between racism or violence versus disagreeing with the way our foreign policy is carried out.
Without freedom of expression there is no democracy. It grinds the entire premise of American cultural values and soft power down to purely symbolic measures, no different to that of Russia or China.
When China first crushed non state-sponsored news organizations in Hong Kong they cited a “Safeguarding National Security” law to fight “foreign influence” and “terrorism.”
What makes this any different?
Read the op-ed by Öztürk for yourself. There is no illegal speech. No threats of violence or libel. It is a criticism of her own institution’s indirect funding of Israel’s post-October 7 response in Palestinian territories.
Although we have not seen any crackdown on SRU’s campus, it is not out of the realm of possibility, especially considering the Trump administration’s recent waving of federal funds at Harvard and other universities receiving federal dollars.
As it stands right now, none of the leading prominent cases dealt with promotion of violence, but simply wrongthink determined by the administration about our own foreign policy decisions or criticisms of their own institutions.
Simply shutting down speech for the sake of dissent only adds to the validity of the speech in the eyes of dissidents.
