4 ms·

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

by 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.

by kreetx 1y ago

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.