E-Pluribus |August 15, 2025
Trump violates foreign students' 1A rights? Trouble with 'assassination culture.' Criticize Israel, lose your job.
A round-up of the latest and best insight on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
JD Tuccille: Trump Administration Sued for Violating Foreign Students' Free Speech Rights
The Trump Administration claims its restrictions on the speech of foreign students in the US quell pro-terrorism agitation. At Reason, JD Tuccille reports that a new First Amendment lawsuit will force the government to defend that claim in court:
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boasts of revoking the visas of foreign students for engaging in protests and voicing their opinions. It's easy to sympathize with his sentiments about the often hateful and pro-terrorist beliefs of some of these students. But offending government officials—even when it involves saying awful things—is a time-honored practice in the United States, and the government is forbidden to punish anybody for speech alone. As a result, the Trump administration is rightfully being sued for violating the First Amendment rights of foreign students in the U.S.
…
"In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion," comments FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. "Free speech isn't a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child."
The complaint points out that "a DHS spokesperson justified the revocation by asserting Öztürk's editorial '[g]lorif[ied] and support[ed] terrorists.'" Other government officials have been equally blunt in conceding that students have been targeted for what they say. In an interview with NPR, Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Troy Edgar said Mahmoud Khalil was detained for "promoting this antisemitism activity," "agitating and supporting Hamas," and "basically pro-Palestinian activity."
Like others who have been detained, Khalil may have done more, but a White House official told The Free Press that "the allegation here is not that he was breaking the law." That is, it's the opinions that those who have been targeted voice that concern the administration.
Max Horder and Olivia Rose: Tracking Luigism Online
People should be free to say whatever they like online, even if their speech is abhorrent. That’s precisely why we have a First Amendment. Nevertheless, we can’t have a flourishing liberal society if murder is viewed as a noble act of political resistance—a perspective that is increasingly common online today. Max Horder and Olivia Rose examine the potential consequences of this so-called “assassination culture” for City Journal:
Several weeks ago, an unknown 27-year-old named Shane Tamura walked into a skyscraper lobby in midtown Manhattan, took out an assault rifle he carried with him from Las Vegas, and opened fire. His killing spree resulted in the death of four individuals; it is the worst mass shooting in New York City for over two decades.
Within hours, social media was awash with memeified images reminiscent of those that circulated last December, when an otherwise reclusive 26-year-old named Luigi Mangione walked to the New York Hilton Midtown, pulled out a 3D-printed pistol, and fatally shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Both shootings occurred within a few blocks of each other.
…
Many responses to coverage of LePatner’s murder embraced the familiar conspiratorial notion of a high-level coverup. In one version, commentators on X claimed that a coalition of media forces was working to hide the fact that she had been “Luigi’d”—Internet slang for being the victim of explicitly anti-capitalist violence. They dismissed as misdirection the claim that Tamura “accidentally” killed LePatner, as well as the idea that he had been targeting the NFL and simply got off the elevator on the wrong floor. All such explanations, they insisted, were whitewashing meant to keep people from “waking up” and seeing the truth.
The prevalence of this chatter on social media reflects the unabated growth of what the Network Contagion Research Institute has termed “assassination culture.” … [T]his online subculture glorifies the political violence epitomized by Mangione’s killing of Thompson last year. Indeed, those affiliated with such an ideology will commonly share memes of Nintendo’s Luigi to cloak the celebration of such violence.
…
The consequences for American civic life are ominous. The slow but steady rise in justifications for political violence bodes ill for any democracy. Praise for Tamura’s actions—regardless of his true motive—points to a growing belief that electoral politics no longer work and that violent extremism is the only way to challenge a corrupted system.
FIRE: University of Kentucky suspended a professor for criticizing Israel. Now, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund is stepping up to defend him.
A law professor who called for military action against Israel because of its war in Gaza was recently removed from his teaching position. True to form, the Foundation for Individual Rights an Expression is taking up his case:
A University of Kentucky professor suspended for criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war now has legal representation thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Ramsi Woodcock had established a steady career as a law professor at UK, where he has taught for seven years. He earned tenure in 2022 and was promoted to full professor on July 1.
Less than two weeks later, the vice provost of the university informed the professor that the university received unspecified complaints about Woodcock’s criticisms of Israel outside the classroom on his personal website and at conferences.
The university failed to respond to Woodcock’s requests for copies of the complaints. On July 18, university officials removed Woodcock from teaching and banned him from campus. The university also sent a message to its campus condemning Woodcock’s views as “repugnant” and publicly announcing an investigation.
Specifically, the university took issue with a petition Woodcock circulated to other law professors across the country that called for military action against Israel because of its war in Gaza, as well as his arguments that Israel should cease to exist.
“This isn’t complicated,” said Graham Piro, FIRE’s Faculty Legal Defense Fund fellow. “Woodcock’s arguments about Israel are clearly protected speech on a matter of public concern, and as a faculty member at a public institution, he has the right to voice his ideas, regardless of whether others find them objectionable. And reprimanding a professor over one set of views opens the door to further restrictions on other opinions down the road.”
Around X
“It’s not about stopping hate — it’s about controlling thought.” Our sentiments exactly on the UK’s slide into totalitarianism.
America’s founders were right to split from Great Britain—if for no other reason than protecting our right to make the dankest memes.
Behold. One of Europe’s would-be overlords.
