6 ms·

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 d

by 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.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        The government can prevent people from entering the country for any number of reasons. The content of their speech is not one of them.
      - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > 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? The government shall not take action in response to his constitutionally protected rights because the laws to authorize that action shall not exist.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    If you actually care about these concepts then reading about them will be faster than relying on Cunningham’s Law to iteratively eliminate all conceivable wrong answers. I recommend starting with the US Constitution at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_S...
    - kreetx 1y ago
      So you are saying that anyone in the world has the rights listed in the US constitution?
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        When they are under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement? Yes, they do.
        kreetx 1y ago
        So I guess the neat way for US to deny entry to people is somehow have the denying done by non-law-enforcement and also perhaps somehow outside of its soil (if that matters)?
        1718627440 1y ago
        Or they could change the constitution if they don't want to abide to it?
        kreetx 1y ago
        Yes, but isn't the current situation based on a technicality then? Assuming that reaching that when anyone reaches US law enforcement gets everything in the constitution applied to them and then must be let into the country because they only want freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I guess the workaround for this would be to have outposts in other countries where non-US law enforcement personnel is denying entry - this would be ok, as the constitution doesn't yet apply. Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    > If you yourself are a citizen, I'm sure you can express your views and not be sent anywhere. Under the current regime US citizens have already been deported to countries they have never visited.
- msgodel 1y ago
  It's the same thing a lot of the people on the right were complaining about ten years ago. Most people don't seem to understand these contradictions until it affects them. Watching this happen twice has really killed the idea that polls are a useful way to determine mandates for government policy in my mind. Most of the population probably just shouldn't be involved.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    What legal censorship were conservatives facing ten years ago? There is no real precedent for this that I can think of since maybe the Red Scare in the 50s.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Well there's all the fake censorship where private parties exercised their First Amendment rights to control which content they carried. According to modern "conservatives", private actors should be compelled by the state to carry certain kinds of speech (their kind, obviously). They will claim the government pressured private platforms despite 1) the platforms never claiming coercion, 2) the moderation actions aligning with the platforms' own content policies, 3) the platforms routinely denying government requests for content moderation, 4) there being no evidence of an implicit or explicit government threat towards the platforms.
      - MangoToupe 1y ago
        > private actors should be compelled by the state to carry certain kinds of speech Restrictions on speech far predate either social media or section 230. If you want to call this censorship—sure, by all means. I don't personally think it is very objectionable appropriately characterized in a situation with consequences.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    > Most people don't seem to understand these contradictions until it affects them. And, by design, it won't affect most people. Except the people who have the chutzpah to speak out against israel, of course—good luck finding that on cable tv or the opinion column. That shit is only on social media.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Has any country ever functioned like that? The idea seems absurd. Of course you should be held legally accountable for what you say. You can see trivial examples in American culture with defamation law, laws against calling for violence, laws about when and where you're allowed to protest. Agree with it or not, we don't have a right to say what we want with no consequence. The devil as always is in the details. But people need to actually agree what sort of values we should have represented as a people to write those laws, and america has never figured out how to do that without either violence or a massive river of cash to distract us from each other. For an instance of how bad free speech can get, look no further than the role RTLM played in the genocide of the Tutsi in 1994.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    > You can see trivial examples in American culture with defamation law, laws against calling for violence, laws about when and where you're allowed to protest. Defamation is extremely hard to stick in the US. You also are allowed in general to call for violence in the US. Incitement is very specific and not merely "calling for violence." > we don't have a right to say what we want with no consequence. Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence. There are extremely, extremely narrow exceptions. Way, way narrower than most people on either side of the political aisle intuit. For an instance of how great free speech can get, look no further than the role the 1st Amendment has played in creating a highly adaptive society that, despite the internal chaos, conquers most of its challenges.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      I understand quibbling about specifics, but I'm still unconvinced "free speech" is a meaningful term or that it's necessary for industrialization with private investment. It's a bone given to morons to get them to not demand real rights. I would also not ever willingly live in a society with truly free speech. > Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence. When has this ever really benefited us? We complain endlessly but fix nothing. What value have unanswered complaints?
- gosub100 1y ago
  Remember, the far left uses terms like "assault" to describe speech they don't like. Maybe this is conservatives' chance to play "manipulate the meaning of words" and spin it as "denied entry in order to prevent assault" ? Either way, they made certain forms of speech de facto illegal and we're not going to go all "free speech" a few years after people on the right were fired or kicked out of school for expressing wrongthink.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The far left is welcome to use those stupid terms. That is also their First Amendment protected speech. Has anyone been charged with assault by the state for their speech? No. Private schools and private employers are private entities (it’s in the name) ergo they do not have to respect the First Amendment. In fact they have First Amendment rights to kick out whoever they want, free of government compelling them otherwise. Incredible eh?
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...

by kreetx 1y ago

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.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        The government can prevent people from entering the country for any number of reasons. The content of their speech is not one of them.
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > 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? The government shall not take action in response to his constitutionally protected rights because the laws to authorize that action shall not exist.
- mulmen 1y ago
  If you actually care about these concepts then reading about them will be faster than relying on Cunningham’s Law to iteratively eliminate all conceivable wrong answers. I recommend starting with the US Constitution at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_S...
  - kreetx 1y ago
    So you are saying that anyone in the world has the rights listed in the US constitution?
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      When they are under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement? Yes, they do.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        So I guess the neat way for US to deny entry to people is somehow have the denying done by non-law-enforcement and also perhaps somehow outside of its soil (if that matters)?
        1718627440 1y ago
        Or they could change the constitution if they don't want to abide to it?
        kreetx 1y ago
        Yes, but isn't the current situation based on a technicality then? Assuming that reaching that when anyone reaches US law enforcement gets everything in the constitution applied to them and then must be let into the country because they only want freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I guess the workaround for this would be to have outposts in other countries where non-US law enforcement personnel is denying entry - this would be ok, as the constitution doesn't yet apply. Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.
- mulmen 1y ago
  > If you yourself are a citizen, I'm sure you can express your views and not be sent anywhere. Under the current regime US citizens have already been deported to countries they have never visited.
msgodel 1y ago
It's the same thing a lot of the people on the right were complaining about ten years ago. Most people don't seem to understand these contradictions until it affects them. Watching this happen twice has really killed the idea that polls are a useful way to determine mandates for government policy in my mind. Most of the population probably just shouldn't be involved.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  What legal censorship were conservatives facing ten years ago? There is no real precedent for this that I can think of since maybe the Red Scare in the 50s.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Well there's all the fake censorship where private parties exercised their First Amendment rights to control which content they carried. According to modern "conservatives", private actors should be compelled by the state to carry certain kinds of speech (their kind, obviously). They will claim the government pressured private platforms despite 1) the platforms never claiming coercion, 2) the moderation actions aligning with the platforms' own content policies, 3) the platforms routinely denying government requests for content moderation, 4) there being no evidence of an implicit or explicit government threat towards the platforms.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      > private actors should be compelled by the state to carry certain kinds of speech Restrictions on speech far predate either social media or section 230. If you want to call this censorship—sure, by all means. I don't personally think it is very objectionable appropriately characterized in a situation with consequences.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > Most people don't seem to understand these contradictions until it affects them. And, by design, it won't affect most people. Except the people who have the chutzpah to speak out against israel, of course—good luck finding that on cable tv or the opinion column. That shit is only on social media.
MangoToupe 1y ago
Has any country ever functioned like that? The idea seems absurd. Of course you should be held legally accountable for what you say. You can see trivial examples in American culture with defamation law, laws against calling for violence, laws about when and where you're allowed to protest. Agree with it or not, we don't have a right to say what we want with no consequence. The devil as always is in the details. But people need to actually agree what sort of values we should have represented as a people to write those laws, and america has never figured out how to do that without either violence or a massive river of cash to distract us from each other. For an instance of how bad free speech can get, look no further than the role RTLM played in the genocide of the Tutsi in 1994.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > You can see trivial examples in American culture with defamation law, laws against calling for violence, laws about when and where you're allowed to protest. Defamation is extremely hard to stick in the US. You also are allowed in general to call for violence in the US. Incitement is very specific and not merely "calling for violence." > we don't have a right to say what we want with no consequence. Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence. There are extremely, extremely narrow exceptions. Way, way narrower than most people on either side of the political aisle intuit. For an instance of how great free speech can get, look no further than the role the 1st Amendment has played in creating a highly adaptive society that, despite the internal chaos, conquers most of its challenges.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    I understand quibbling about specifics, but I'm still unconvinced "free speech" is a meaningful term or that it's necessary for industrialization with private investment. It's a bone given to morons to get them to not demand real rights. I would also not ever willingly live in a society with truly free speech. > Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence. When has this ever really benefited us? We complain endlessly but fix nothing. What value have unanswered complaints?
gosub100 1y ago
Remember, the far left uses terms like "assault" to describe speech they don't like. Maybe this is conservatives' chance to play "manipulate the meaning of words" and spin it as "denied entry in order to prevent assault" ? Either way, they made certain forms of speech de facto illegal and we're not going to go all "free speech" a few years after people on the right were fired or kicked out of school for expressing wrongthink.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  The far left is welcome to use those stupid terms. That is also their First Amendment protected speech. Has anyone been charged with assault by the state for their speech? No. Private schools and private employers are private entities (it’s in the name) ergo they do not have to respect the First Amendment. In fact they have First Amendment rights to kick out whoever they want, free of government compelling them otherwise. Incredible eh?

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...