4 ms·
Looking at public profiles is one thing… requiring people to switch their profiles to “Public” so they can be looked at seems like another thing. How is that ev
by jmbwell 1y ago
Looking at public profiles is one thing… requiring people to switch their profiles to “Public” so they can be looked at seems like another thing. How is that even enforceable? What if they find some profile that happens to have my name and is private, but isn’t mine? To say nothing of the legitimate reasons to have a private profile in the first place. And who defines “hostility?”
It’s hard not to see this as another “freedom of speech (but only for the kind of speech we like)” situation.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoDoes/should one have freedom of speech if they are a non-citizen and not in the US yet? If so, should the US police around the world to ensure that?
- MinimalAction 1y agoBut aren't they applying to be a student in the US? Who is US to decide if a non-citizen can or cannot have freedom of speech? What a tone deaf comment was that!
- BeetleB 1y agoI think the gray area is that the student is not in the US. They are in another country, and are applying at a consulate/embassy. Many of the rights US residents have don't apply to visa applicants. In any case, there are plenty of examples in the past where the US denied people entry based on stuff they've publicly said/written. What's different here is requiring you to disclose all your handles and make them public.
- OkayPhysicist 1y agoThis really shouldn't be a gray area, if we just actually applied the constitution. The first amendment doesn't grant the people the freedom of speech, it restricts Congress from passing any law that infringes upon it.
- pyuser583 1y agoThis ultra-literalist approach leads to the conclusion that nothing in the constitution prevents states from outlawing speech or establishing a religion.
- potato3732842 1y agoThey didn't just stop at 1 amendment. There's a bunch of others that have been interpreted as covering those eventualities and many more.
- grafmax 1y agowe don’t get our rights from our government. It can only recognize these rights. Free speech is a human right whether or not a government recognizes it. People under an authoritarian regime still have a human right to free speech even if that regime outlaws it.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoThis strikes me as a false dichotomy. There is a solar-system-sized gap between "my country should not impose speech restrictions on foreign visitors" and "my country should police every other country to ensure that they do not impose speech restrictions upon their own citizens within their borders". Was anybody seriously proposing that?
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoI was only asking questions.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoBut aren't some questions productive and others unproductive? And if so, should the US police the entire world to ensure that no unproductive questions are ever asked?
- text0404 1y agothis is such a trope at this point that it has its own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoThanks for the criticism. In this case, what do you see as the "false or distorted claims by framing them as questions" that I was making?
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoProbably: > a false dichotomy
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoThat's what you said, not me. Are you saying I presented a false dichotomy? A false dichotomy, also known as a false dilemma or either/or fallacy, occurs when only two options are presented as possibilities in a situation where other options exist. What are the two options I presented? I asked two Y/N questions and even if the answer to the first is Y, the answer to the second can still be Y or N, I'm not presupposing an answer.
- OkayPhysicist 1y agoYes, they do. Full stop. The constitution is not ambiguous about this, at all. The Bill of Rights starts, right out of the gates with: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " Note the wording. It's not in the business of granting rights (those are natural and inalienable). It restricts Congress's ability to pass any law that infringes upon those rights.
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoI like this take.
- votepaunchy 1y agoYou don’t have a right to a US visa. You can choose not to comply with the request.
- grafmax 1y agoThe issue is retaliating against free speech using the visa process. A person doesn’t have a right to a visa but they have right to free speech. Using the visa process to retaliate against free speech violates a foundational principle of our government the human right to free speech.
- votepaunchy 1y agoNo, it only means that you enjoy your free speech back home. No rights are being violated or suppressed. You’ll find this to be true in every free country.
- grafmax 1y agoActually most democracies extend freedom of expression to everyone including immigrants. Withholding a visa by a government due to political statements is retaliation and retaliation is a method of suppressing someone’s free speech.
- croes 1y agoYou are mixing two things. Rights in the US jurisdiction and outside of it
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rendaw 1y agoYeah, I wonder how this is checked/enforced as well, it doesn't seem trivial and especially in the time at entry. Is it something they take action over retroactively, after correlating records from multiple companies?
- potato3732842 1y agoLike everything else the government does they'll take you at your word and scrutinize it later looking for an excuse to screw you if you do anything they don't like.