44 ms·

This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seeker

This will have a chilling effect on speech in this country, which is extremely sad. Academic and trade conferences would be best taken elsewhere. And job seekers? Prefer remote. For me as an American, this is, I guess, fine now. I won't be affected right away. But I fully expect other countries to institute reciprocal policies.

human20190310 7y ago
1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction? I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  Not a lawyer, so I can only speculate as a layperson 1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections 2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States ¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated ² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
  - eftychis 7y ago
    Just to add a bit on this. The (U.S) Bill of Rights applies to any person on U.S. soil. (That is a common misconception apparently but like many modern constitutions it refers to persons and not citizens). There is the gray area surrounding around the periphery of the U.S. and borders (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone) (Essentially the U.S. government reasons that the area surrounding the border is U.S. soil for CBP, and not U.S. soil for anyone else.)
- mushufasa 7y ago
  1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights. So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
  - stOneskull 7y ago
    They're supposed to be God-given rights
    - tagrun 7y ago
      Except they're not, they're man-made laws. (I don't believe in any deity or religion but arguing on delusions is beyond the point.)
      - stOneskull 7y ago
        as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    > 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words. The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- reallydude 7y ago
  > Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority. "Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction. My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
- briandear 7y ago
  The Constitution also gives Congress the right to regulate immigration and naturalization.
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    The first amendment comes afterward, but I have to admit I have no idea if there's any case law that it's unconstitutional to deny a visa on the basis of the applicant's viewpoints.

human20190310 7y ago

1) Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? 2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction? I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.

AaronFriel 7y ago
Not a lawyer, so I can only speculate as a layperson 1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections 2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States ¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated ² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
- eftychis 7y ago
  Just to add a bit on this. The (U.S) Bill of Rights applies to any person on U.S. soil. (That is a common misconception apparently but like many modern constitutions it refers to persons and not citizens). There is the gray area surrounding around the periphery of the U.S. and borders (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone) (Essentially the U.S. government reasons that the area surrounding the border is U.S. soil for CBP, and not U.S. soil for anyone else.)
mushufasa 7y ago
1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  I think it's more complicated than that, with the constitutional protections from US government action being narrower outside the US border depending on the legal status of the person(s) in question and the context of the imposition on their rights. So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
- stOneskull 7y ago
  They're supposed to be God-given rights
  - tagrun 7y ago
    Except they're not, they're man-made laws. (I don't believe in any deity or religion but arguing on delusions is beyond the point.)
    - stOneskull 7y ago
      as in people have the right to free speech, not just citizens. in this man-made document for this nation, it says people are born with rights, and so that belief must extend to people outside the nation. they were born too.
- jMyles 7y ago
  > 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words. The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
reallydude 7y ago
> Doesn't the First Amendment restrict the US government from curtailing free expression and free association anyplace, not just within US borders? Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority. "Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction. My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
briandear 7y ago
The Constitution also gives Congress the right to regulate immigration and naturalization.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  The first amendment comes afterward, but I have to admit I have no idea if there's any case law that it's unconstitutional to deny a visa on the basis of the applicant's viewpoints.