6 ms·

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speec

by noqc 1y ago

To me, the only reasonable exception that might exist to totally unrestricted speech is paid speech. If the courts really wishes to foster a state of free speech, then it should recognize that doing so requires the regulation of contractually obligated speech. Advertising, paid endorsements, Public relations firms, these are all things that obviously must be regulated, perhaps out of existence. And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.

thrance 1y ago
Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens? Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.
- noqc 1y ago
  You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.
  - thrance 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.
    - noqc 1y ago
      I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".
      - computerthings 1y ago
        [dead]
pjc50 1y ago
Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans. As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before. It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
- noqc 1y ago
  I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above. Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    So .. where are the speech rules for visa holders written down? The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible. What are the speech laws that apply here? Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?
horsawlarway 1y ago
So speech should be totally unrestricted, unless that speech is made by someone whose ideology you don't like, who doesn't happen to be born here. In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse? Am I understanding you correctly?
- noqc 1y ago
  Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?
  - horsawlarway 1y ago
    > heinous shit Code for - things you don't like. Check. > No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse. My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you) But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate." Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now". And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements... I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted". Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted? Are you unable to comprehend how those are related? Do you not care? Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all? Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.
plaidphantom 1y ago
Winning with a 49.8% popular vote is hardly a "mandate".
- noqc 1y ago
  Winning an election in a democratic country is a mandate. I also wish Trump wasn't elected president, but he definitely was.

by noqc 1y ago

thrance 1y ago

Deportations without due process aren't though. And what does it even mean to deport citizens? Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.

noqc 1y ago
You cannot deport citizens, and I believe that I am not arguing that you can, however, the process due to non-citizens is very minimal. You and your belongings are being returned to your country, where you will be free to do with them whatever you please. It's not incarceration, or a fine, we're just kicking you out, and we can basically do that at our discretion.
- thrance 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.
  - noqc 1y ago
    I agree! But this is very different from "the first amendment protects you from deportation".
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]

pjc50 1y ago

Incredible that someone might combine the American "free speech is absolutely everything" with "it's good to deport people for their speech" in two short paragraphs, but I guess that's where conservativism is at nowadays.

horsawlarway 1y ago
I don't think there's much "reconciliation" going on in the heads of a lot of folks who support modern day republicans. As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before. It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
noqc 1y ago
I'm not a conservative. I'm absolutely in favor of free speech, modulo paid speech, as I listed above. Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
- pjc50 1y ago
  So .. where are the speech rules for visa holders written down? The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible. What are the speech laws that apply here? Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?

horsawlarway 1y ago

So speech should be totally unrestricted, unless that speech is made by someone whose ideology you don't like, who doesn't happen to be born here. In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse? Am I understanding you correctly?

noqc 1y ago
Not without due process, but I'm not sure what you think that means. No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. Do you think that by saying heinous shit, you are de facto granted citizenship?
- horsawlarway 1y ago
  > heinous shit Code for - things you don't like. Check. > No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home. We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse. My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you) But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate." Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now". And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements... I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted". Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted? Are you unable to comprehend how those are related? Do you not care? Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all? Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.

plaidphantom 1y ago

Winning with a 49.8% popular vote is hardly a "mandate".

noqc 1y ago
Winning an election in a democratic country is a mandate. I also wish Trump wasn't elected president, but he definitely was.