6 ms·

Under a normal administration that actually would be unexpected, yes.

by jakelazaroff 1y ago

kreetx 1y ago
[flagged]
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  The "normal administration" to which I'm referring would be almost any administration in US history other than the current one. Freedom of speech is — at least putatively — a bedrock principle of the US. In fact, the same Secretary of State who deported this man from the US for his speech (amongst dozens of other such deportations[1]) has announced a policy meant to prevent other countries from doing the exact same thing.[2] "Free speech for me, but not for thee." [1]: https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-free-speech-as-he-hand-picks-protesters-to-deport/ https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-fr... [2]: https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-policy-targeting-foreign-nationals-who-censor-americans/ https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-pol...
  - cmurf 1y ago
    Fascists consider applying double standards that enable them to enjoy what they deny others, virtuous. Not a logical fallacy. The purpose is to dominate.
  - kreetx 1y ago
    AFAIK, the speech is still free. The denied person seems to be a foreign national and by all looks of it, an activist, taking part in university protests. It doesn't seem all that surprising that he got denied entry.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      Man, if we can't agree that "freedom of speech" includes protection from legal consequences for something you say then there's really nowhere to go from here.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        Well, he appears to have been a protester at Columbia University in 2024, and he is also not a citizen. If you yourself are a citizen, I'm sure you can express your views and not be sent anywhere. You can also vote to get people in power who are more to your liking, or even attempt be one of those people yourself.
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        None of this is relevant to what you're trying to argue ("AFAIK, the speech is still free").
        kreetx 1y ago
        He can still express his opinion and he can still protest. In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Reductio ad absurdum: corporal punishment for people who say things the government dislikes doesn't violate their freedom of speech. Sure, they might get beaten for it, but they can still express their opinion and they can still protest! Yes, my opinion is that there should be no legal consequences for speech. And again, that is the US Secretary of State's opinion too — just only for US nationals traveling to foreign countries, not vice versa.
        kreetx 1y ago
        So no upper limit: any amount of foreigners should be allowed in at any amount? (Corporal punishment is when it's physical pain. I don't think a sore bum from an airplane seat counts.)
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        They are not limiting foreigners (well, they are, but that's a separate issue). They are deporting people specifically in order to censor speech the government dislikes, irrespective of how many people are visiting the country. I understand what corporal punishment is. My point is that the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of "free speech" does not preclude it.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      Restating: > It doesn't seem all that surprising that he > got denied entry. [because he was] 1> an activist 2> taking part in university protests 3> foreign In your mind: Why do these qualifications move US Gov behavior - from the unacceptable column into the unsurprising column?
      - kreetx 1y ago
        The protesting and activism are the same. I think foreign students/citizens should refrain from doing either of these, as they are in the country for a specific reason (to study), and not to turn its government. You'll probably get away with it when you do it at a small scale, but as things get out of hand, you are unlikely to go unnoticed - as person in the topic apparently did.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        There are no such considerations in the US Constitution. As an American, I have a right to hear the speech of foreign students and citizens. The government does not have the power to prevent me from hearing what they have to say. Small or large scale does not matter. Stanley v Georgia: "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is fundamental to our free society." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/
        kreetx 1y ago
        Does your right to hear anyone's speach mean that any person you want to hear and is able to reach the US has to be allowed to remain in the country? Does this mean physically hearing this person? Because if not, then the blog and the socials will continue to be there.
        WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > Does your right to hear anyone's speach The rights are that Gov shall make no law prohibiting speech and assembly. By extension, Gov shall not perform actions in response to speech and assembly, because the laws to authorize those actions shall not exist.
    - sn9 1y ago
      If you can get deported for your speech, it is not free. Constitutional rights aren't conditional on US citizenship unless explicitly stated. [0] [0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
- jmye 1y ago
  > and am just observing it from quite a distance You have remarkably strident opinions about a country, and its laws and norms, that you claim to be unfamiliar with and not a part of.
  - eyesofgod 1y ago
    [dead]

Under a normal administration that actually would be unexpected, yes.

kreetx 1y ago

[flagged]

jakelazaroff 1y ago
The "normal administration" to which I'm referring would be almost any administration in US history other than the current one. Freedom of speech is — at least putatively — a bedrock principle of the US. In fact, the same Secretary of State who deported this man from the US for his speech (amongst dozens of other such deportations[1]) has announced a policy meant to prevent other countries from doing the exact same thing.[2] "Free speech for me, but not for thee." [1]: https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-free-speech-as-he-hand-picks-protesters-to-deport/ https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-fr... [2]: https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-policy-targeting-foreign-nationals-who-censor-americans/ https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-pol...
- cmurf 1y ago
  Fascists consider applying double standards that enable them to enjoy what they deny others, virtuous. Not a logical fallacy. The purpose is to dominate.
- kreetx 1y ago
  AFAIK, the speech is still free. The denied person seems to be a foreign national and by all looks of it, an activist, taking part in university protests. It doesn't seem all that surprising that he got denied entry.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    Man, if we can't agree that "freedom of speech" includes protection from legal consequences for something you say then there's really nowhere to go from here.
    - kreetx 1y ago
      Well, he appears to have been a protester at Columbia University in 2024, and he is also not a citizen. If you yourself are a citizen, I'm sure you can express your views and not be sent anywhere. You can also vote to get people in power who are more to your liking, or even attempt be one of those people yourself.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        None of this is relevant to what you're trying to argue ("AFAIK, the speech is still free").
        kreetx 1y ago
        He can still express his opinion and he can still protest. In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Reductio ad absurdum: corporal punishment for people who say things the government dislikes doesn't violate their freedom of speech. Sure, they might get beaten for it, but they can still express their opinion and they can still protest! Yes, my opinion is that there should be no legal consequences for speech. And again, that is the US Secretary of State's opinion too — just only for US nationals traveling to foreign countries, not vice versa.
        kreetx 1y ago
        So no upper limit: any amount of foreigners should be allowed in at any amount? (Corporal punishment is when it's physical pain. I don't think a sore bum from an airplane seat counts.)
        jakelazaroff 1y ago
        They are not limiting foreigners (well, they are, but that's a separate issue). They are deporting people specifically in order to censor speech the government dislikes, irrespective of how many people are visiting the country. I understand what corporal punishment is. My point is that the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of "free speech" does not preclude it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    Restating: > It doesn't seem all that surprising that he > got denied entry. [because he was] 1> an activist 2> taking part in university protests 3> foreign In your mind: Why do these qualifications move US Gov behavior - from the unacceptable column into the unsurprising column?
    - kreetx 1y ago
      The protesting and activism are the same. I think foreign students/citizens should refrain from doing either of these, as they are in the country for a specific reason (to study), and not to turn its government. You'll probably get away with it when you do it at a small scale, but as things get out of hand, you are unlikely to go unnoticed - as person in the topic apparently did.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        There are no such considerations in the US Constitution. As an American, I have a right to hear the speech of foreign students and citizens. The government does not have the power to prevent me from hearing what they have to say. Small or large scale does not matter. Stanley v Georgia: "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is fundamental to our free society." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/
        kreetx 1y ago
        Does your right to hear anyone's speach mean that any person you want to hear and is able to reach the US has to be allowed to remain in the country? Does this mean physically hearing this person? Because if not, then the blog and the socials will continue to be there.
        WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > Does your right to hear anyone's speach The rights are that Gov shall make no law prohibiting speech and assembly. By extension, Gov shall not perform actions in response to speech and assembly, because the laws to authorize those actions shall not exist.
  - sn9 1y ago
    If you can get deported for your speech, it is not free. Constitutional rights aren't conditional on US citizenship unless explicitly stated. [0] [0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
jmye 1y ago
> and am just observing it from quite a distance You have remarkably strident opinions about a country, and its laws and norms, that you claim to be unfamiliar with and not a part of.
- eyesofgod 1y ago
  [dead]