4 ms·

It seems like 90% of the comments here didn't read the article and think it has to do with section 230, which Twitter is also in the news for right now. Regard

by paulgb 6y ago

It seems like 90% of the comments here didn't read the article and think it has to do with section 230, which Twitter is also in the news for right now. Regardless of how you feel about their moderation policies, if you care about free speech you should at least be on their side with this one. Requesting social media handles from visa applicants does chill speech. As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or photos from protests on social media. If you truly care about free speech, be consistent and care about that too.

ur-whale 6y ago
> As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or photos from protests on social media. You should consider using Tor. It was first and foremost designed for this very purpose.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Using Tor doesn't really change much. You are still left with a choice: a - give up your details when required to do so by the government. b - lie on a government form and/or to a government official If you choose b, then at any point in the future it's discovered that you did lie, then this can make life very very difficult. Not only can your Visa be cancelled, it can mean you're never again able to visit the US. It means uprooting your entire life to return to the country you were born in. There's been plenty of stories, some posted here, where this has happened to someone who either through a mistake, or even no fault of their own - has ended up in hot water and their Visa withdrawn. Using Tor and successfully remaining truly anonymous are non-trivial things, and endangering your livelihood and ability to remain in the US is a large risk. This ignores the genuine possibility of prosecution for making false statements and/or lying to a government official.
- billme 6y ago
  At the point your threat model includes nation states of note — in my opinion, any recommendation of Tor should acknowledge why Tor would not increase threats instead of reducing them.
- lake99 6y ago
  Twitter does not work on Tor unless you also give them your phone number, making the exercise pointless.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > designed for this very purpose ... by the US Navy. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-actually-made-by-the-CIA https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-ac...
sp332 6y ago
It doesn't only chill speech, it indicates that a decision about whether to let the person into the country will be based on their speech. Speech isn't "free" if the government is going to punish you for it.
- lagadu 6y ago
  As I understand it, the free speech guarantee in the US only applies to their citizens, doesn't it? edit: I was wrong, it mostly applies to everyone [0] [0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
  - da_chicken 6y ago
    No. The First Amendment applies to everyone. It applies to American law on American soil, on foreign soil, to citizens, and to non-citizens. There are some exceptions, particularly for illegal immigrants, but in general foreign nationals have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens. It's not even hard to find legal scholar opinions stating such: https://victormalcalaw.com/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/ https://victormalcalaw.com/do-non-citizens-have-constitution... https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights... Guantanamo Bay being a violation of due process and habeus corpus is one of the big problems with it. The problem is that it's excruciatingly difficult to have standing and jurisdiction in these cases, which is one of the ways the government skirts accountability. Edit: I replied before your edit; I will leave this comment as-is, however.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  Given some forms of speech are illegal and the government would have an interest in preventing people engaging in those forms of speech, why would denying someone based on their speech be a negative thing? I've seen a few people try to argue around this by saying the specific types of speech that are illegal (and which most everyone agree should be illegal) don't actually count as speech, but that feels like playing semantics. There is a concern that government will make their judgments based on something other than illegal speech, but that is a larger concern with the government in general and selective enforcement of laws. Consider the guy who was publishing 3d weapon designs. Officially he wasn't punished for his speech but for other crimes (which just so happens to be one of the few strict liability crimes so the government doesn't have to prove mens rea), but he was given special focus that appears to have been because of his legal speech. Selective enforcement of laws already leads to a chilling effect on speech that is a much larger concern as it impacts all citizens, residents, immigrants, and potentials thereof, not just visa applicants.
macspoofing 6y ago
>As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or photos from protests on social media. If you're a visa holder, you should refrain from taking political action in the country you're staying. The US is pretty lenient on this matter, but the majority of countries are much more strict.
- gpm 6y ago
  As a visa holder you should generally respect the laws of your host country. To the extent that the laws of your host allow you to participate in political action you should feel entirely free to. In the case of the US I'm 95% certain that the laws allow you to engage in political speech. Obviously you should not misrepresent yourself as a citizen of the host country, but that's just part of the general "lying is bad" moral prohibition.
  - jobigoud 6y ago
    It feels a bit weird to engage in politics in a country you are not a citizen of, though. It's good that it's allowed and it shouln't be impeded but it feels a bit like when you go to a friend's house and tell them how they should educate their children differently.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >As a visa holder you should generally respect the laws of your host country. ... and terms of your visa. >To the extent that the laws of your host allow you to participate in political action you should feel entirely free to. You are taking a risk that a citizen of that country does not. If a citizen gets arrested as part of riot/protest control, they'll get released in a short amount of time. You, as a visa-holder, may get your visa revoked, lose your job and get deported. You may have issues with visa renewal or reentry (because typically visa terms allow for arbitrary revocation and lots of discretion is given to border agents and issuing officer). But it's your life. Take any risk you want.
    - gpm 6y ago

by paulgb 6y ago

ur-whale 6y ago

> As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or photos from protests on social media. You should consider using Tor. It was first and foremost designed for this very purpose.

paranoidrobot 6y ago
Using Tor doesn't really change much. You are still left with a choice: a - give up your details when required to do so by the government. b - lie on a government form and/or to a government official If you choose b, then at any point in the future it's discovered that you did lie, then this can make life very very difficult. Not only can your Visa be cancelled, it can mean you're never again able to visit the US. It means uprooting your entire life to return to the country you were born in. There's been plenty of stories, some posted here, where this has happened to someone who either through a mistake, or even no fault of their own - has ended up in hot water and their Visa withdrawn. Using Tor and successfully remaining truly anonymous are non-trivial things, and endangering your livelihood and ability to remain in the US is a large risk. This ignores the genuine possibility of prosecution for making false statements and/or lying to a government official.
billme 6y ago
At the point your threat model includes nation states of note — in my opinion, any recommendation of Tor should acknowledge why Tor would not increase threats instead of reducing them.
lake99 6y ago
Twitter does not work on Tor unless you also give them your phone number, making the exercise pointless.
pjc50 6y ago
> designed for this very purpose ... by the US Navy. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-actually-made-by-the-CIA https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-ac...

sp332 6y ago

It doesn't only chill speech, it indicates that a decision about whether to let the person into the country will be based on their speech. Speech isn't "free" if the government is going to punish you for it.

lagadu 6y ago
As I understand it, the free speech guarantee in the US only applies to their citizens, doesn't it? edit: I was wrong, it mostly applies to everyone [0] [0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
- da_chicken 6y ago
  No. The First Amendment applies to everyone. It applies to American law on American soil, on foreign soil, to citizens, and to non-citizens. There are some exceptions, particularly for illegal immigrants, but in general foreign nationals have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens. It's not even hard to find legal scholar opinions stating such: https://victormalcalaw.com/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights/ https://victormalcalaw.com/do-non-citizens-have-constitution... https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights... Guantanamo Bay being a violation of due process and habeus corpus is one of the big problems with it. The problem is that it's excruciatingly difficult to have standing and jurisdiction in these cases, which is one of the ways the government skirts accountability. Edit: I replied before your edit; I will leave this comment as-is, however.
SkyBelow 6y ago
Given some forms of speech are illegal and the government would have an interest in preventing people engaging in those forms of speech, why would denying someone based on their speech be a negative thing? I've seen a few people try to argue around this by saying the specific types of speech that are illegal (and which most everyone agree should be illegal) don't actually count as speech, but that feels like playing semantics. There is a concern that government will make their judgments based on something other than illegal speech, but that is a larger concern with the government in general and selective enforcement of laws. Consider the guy who was publishing 3d weapon designs. Officially he wasn't punished for his speech but for other crimes (which just so happens to be one of the few strict liability crimes so the government doesn't have to prove mens rea), but he was given special focus that appears to have been because of his legal speech. Selective enforcement of laws already leads to a chilling effect on speech that is a much larger concern as it impacts all citizens, residents, immigrants, and potentials thereof, not just visa applicants.

macspoofing 6y ago

>As a visa holder, I've thought long and hard over whether I should post political comments or photos from protests on social media. If you're a visa holder, you should refrain from taking political action in the country you're staying. The US is pretty lenient on this matter, but the majority of countries are much more strict.

gpm 6y ago
As a visa holder you should generally respect the laws of your host country. To the extent that the laws of your host allow you to participate in political action you should feel entirely free to. In the case of the US I'm 95% certain that the laws allow you to engage in political speech. Obviously you should not misrepresent yourself as a citizen of the host country, but that's just part of the general "lying is bad" moral prohibition.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  It feels a bit weird to engage in politics in a country you are not a citizen of, though. It's good that it's allowed and it shouln't be impeded but it feels a bit like when you go to a friend's house and tell them how they should educate their children differently.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >As a visa holder you should generally respect the laws of your host country. ... and terms of your visa. >To the extent that the laws of your host allow you to participate in political action you should feel entirely free to. You are taking a risk that a citizen of that country does not. If a citizen gets arrested as part of riot/protest control, they'll get released in a short amount of time. You, as a visa-holder, may get your visa revoked, lose your job and get deported. You may have issues with visa renewal or reentry (because typically visa terms allow for arbitrary revocation and lots of discretion is given to border agents and issuing officer). But it's your life. Take any risk you want.
  - gpm 6y ago