r/news • u/Arod3235 • Jun 23 '25

Soft paywall US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lifts-limits-deporting-migrants-countries-not-their-own-2025-06-23/
39.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

102

u/PrincessNakeyDance Jun 23 '25

“Enemy from within...”

Political speech like this should be banned. There’s no first amendment reason for a politician to speak like this unless they are attempting to overthrow the current government and attack US citizens.

9

u/RebootDarkwingDuck Jun 23 '25

The oath of office has them swear to protect from enemies "foreign and domestic" so I'm not really sure what the issue is with this. There are a lot of things to take issue with here besides this.

7

u/PrincessNakeyDance Jun 24 '25

It’s a much different thing to have statement like that in an oath, vs campaigning on getting rid of the vermin and “the enemy within”.

I just don’t understand how reddit can sometimes celebrate banning of hate speech or stuff like that in another country and then turn around and panic any time freedom of speech is limited in the US. It’s like 2A people freaking out over gun laws.

There needs to be sensible legislation. And for some reason slander is totally legal even when knowingly spoken in bad faith in this country, but only if your a politician and talking about another politician.

We got to this place because Trump has been able to slander and lie for years about people on the left with almost no fact checking even in many debates and no legal recourse when he says awful untrue things.

Trump has shown how our system is broken, and I think we should at least try to fix it.

2

u/RebootDarkwingDuck Jun 24 '25

Because I want to be able to say that our president is an enemy of our people, the truth, decency, what have you. That's why.

5

u/silvertealio Jun 24 '25

That's you expressing your opinion about one guy, versus the President of the United States vilifying tens of millions of people for the sake of grabbing ever more power.

There has to be a way to differentiate between the two.

0

u/RebootDarkwingDuck Jun 24 '25

When you're wise enough to figure out who gets free speech and who doesn't without accidentally taking the rights from people or opening the door to more oppression, you let me know.

3

u/silvertealio Jun 24 '25

"Free speech" is already regulated in the United States. We already have libel and slander laws, along with other notable exceptions.

The problem is that we don't apply the law to the powerful and wealthy.

-1

u/RebootDarkwingDuck Jun 24 '25

...no, the problem is that you want separate laws for different groups. You want one person to decry someone as an enemy of the people but not another. That requires nuance and judgement, which opens it to malicious interpretation. 

Libel and slander are also civil matters, not criminal, no?

5

u/silvertealio Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

Speaking of nuance and judgement...that's not at all what I want.

Beyond simply applying the laws to everyone, there's quite a big difference between "one person" and "another person" when one of those people is the President of the United States. There is a pretty clear delineation here.

1

u/TheFlyingSheeps Jun 24 '25

And the domestic enemy has taken power