1 week Ago
In recent weeks, we have seen a public outcry against the Trump administration’s attempts to deport foreign nationals who participated in anti-Israel activism on college campuses. Perhaps the most high-profile case is that of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by ICE at his New York apartment on March 8. Khalil is being held in federal detention in Louisiana as his deportation order is challenged in court.
Like most Americans , according to recent polling, I strongly support Israel over Hamas. I find the rhetoric of Mahmoud Khalil disgusting. But if this nation of immigrants can summarily deport any alien simply because we despise their political views, the promise of the First Amendment is no promise at all.
Lisandro Berry Gaviria grew up in Bowdoinham and graduated from Notre Dame in 2024. He plans to attend Harvard Law School this fall. The words “Congress shall make no law .
.. abridging the freedom of speech” acknowledge no distinction between citizens and noncitizens.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally recognized this, holding in 1945 that “[f]reedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” These Orwellian attempts to quash dissent are particularly galling in light of President Trump’s professed commitment to free speech , as Democrats have eagerly pointed out. But hypocrisy is a two-way street.
Given members of the political left’s proclivity for trampling on speech they dislike, their outrage on this issue rings hollow. I could point to a multitude of examples, but let’s take one relevant to Maine. Many of those who now vehemently decry the persecution of Khalil also celebrated when the state House of Representatives unconstitutionally muzzled Rep.
Laurel Libby for her recent Facebook post about a transgender athlete. To be clear, I have no more love for Rep. Libby’s hateful words about a vulnerable minor than for Khalil’s hateful words about the Jewish state.
But the true test of our fidelity to freedom of speech is whether we are willing to defend expression of the ideas we find the most offensive to our personal moral values. As mean-spirited as her post was, Rep. Libby was speaking on an issue of public concern, using widely available information and photos from public events.
(As a former Maine high school track athlete myself, I can confirm that having your identity publicized is a pretty unavoidable byproduct of competing in a state championship.) Her post, like Ozturk’s op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper and Khalil’s alleged distribution of Hamas-issued flyers, is core “political speech” entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection . Apologists for the Trump administration or the Maine House cite various authorities to rationalize their infringements on protected speech.
They include a McCarthy-era statute allowing unilateral deportation of aliens who pose “adverse foreign policy consequences” and a provision in Maine’s constitution authorizing discipline of legislators for “disorderly behavior,” to take just two. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It supersedes any federal law, state law, state constitution, executive order, regulatory rule, parliamentary procedure or other governmental action that conflicts with its guarantees.
And the fundamental purpose of our Constitution —indeed, the purpose of government itself — isn’t to enact a majority’s moral convictions. Rather, as the Declaration of Independence expressly proclaims, government is created to secure our natural, inalienable rights—among them “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness.” An essential component of both is the freedom to speak your mind, no matter how disfavored your views may be.
Unfortunately, too many of Maine and America’s leaders choose to adopt this principle only when they like what the speaker has to say. With the example their hypocrisy sets, it’s little wonder my generation is historically intolerant of free expression and increasingly doesn’t even know what the First Amendment says. It is incumbent on us to change that, starting from an understanding that silencing loathsome speech only gives it more power.
For my part, I hope to someday live in an America where profound moral disagreements are a reason for more dialogue, not an excuse to shut debate down. We believe it’s important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way.
It’s a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. Read more..
. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. For those stories that we do enable discussion, our system may hold up comments pending the approval of a moderator for several reasons, including possible violation of our guidelines.
As the Maine Trust’s digital team reviews these comments, we ask for patience. Comments are managed by our staff during regular business hours Monday through Friday and limited hours on Saturday and Sunday. Comments held for moderation outside of those hours may take longer to approve.
By joining the conversation, you are agreeing to our commenting policy and terms of use . More information is found on our FAQs . You can modify your screen name here .
Show less Please sign into your Sun Journal account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe . Questions? Please see our FAQs .
Your commenting screen name has been updated. Send questions/comments to the editors..
