5 ms·

“Party of free speech” (tm)

by Calvin02 1y ago

SoftTalker 1y ago
[flagged]
- gregjw 1y ago
  Revoking visas for exercising freedom of speech is infringing freedom of speech.
- Loudergood 1y ago
  Clear government penalties for speech.
- scarecrowbob 1y ago
  I'm a citizen and describing speech I may engage in such as saying that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” as something that the government doesn't approve of creates a chilling standard for my own speech. So my speech, you authoritarian jerk. I should be able to say stuff like that- why the fuck should the government get to say what is okay for folks to say?
  - aaomidi 1y ago
    Second this and even when these restrictions apply to foreign nationals as visa enforcement it’s still a chilling effect on American citizens.
    - scarecrowbob 1y ago
      Not to understate the actual reason that I find authoritarian controls on speech outrageous: I 100% agree that it's wrong to revoke visas over politically-protected speech. I just find it easier to communicate "a basic sense of self interest" to the sociopaths who are happy to see state power used against strangers their country is hosting. If the state can do it to those folks, they will eventually do it to you and I. It used to be the case that treating strangers and foreigners -better- than we might treat ourselves was a goal for humans. You can read it in the religious texts of the assholes I live around who pretend that their religion should rule all the subjects of the land they have occupied.
      - schoen 1y ago
        It's interesting to see the positive views of benevolence, tolerance, hospitality, and justice toward strangers in many of the ancient Mediterranean cultures. I wonder how typical or atypical those are across time and across cultures, and what kinds of limitations are placed on them. Apart from Exodus 23:9 and similar commandments (and specific stories of hospitality in the Bible), I think of the idea of ξενία xenia from ancient Greek culture, and then the proverbially famous Arab and Middle Eastern hospitality today.
  - schoen 1y ago
    The legal theory is that you, as a citizen, have a clear free speech right to say that, but that foreigners outside the U.S. don't have any free speech right at all under the U.S. constitution to say that. (In a related legal doctrine, denying people a visa in retaliation for their specific actions is officially "not a punishment".) I think this theory is pretty broken, but I also find that there are a lot of things where longstanding legal doctrines give the government humongous amounts of power and discretion, and they often did not just, like, make up the concept just 10 minutes ago. Often it's arguably been the rule for many decades. The thing that I'm more familiar with in this category is border searches. My mom was surprised to hear that people's devices (including U.S. citizens' devices) were being searched at the border without suspicion, something that would obviously violate the fourth amendment in a regular domestic context. Something my mom didn't know, but I happened to know from having studied and written about this in the past, is that we have legal precedents going back decades that specifically say that that is a power that the government has. Now, I would like to see a rule that the fourth amendment does apply at the border, but we've been far away from that for years, with important cases in 2004 and 1985 and even longer ago saying that it doesn't. (In this case, it is held not to apply to either citizens or non-citizens in the border search context.) So, I would encourage people to have a broader sense of historical perspective about the staggering amount of power and discretion that the government has repeatedly been given, and the considerable number of limitations that have been held to apply to various legal rights, while also opposing this and trying to change it. Edit: In terms of foreigners' political expression, I believe we've had rules in the U.S. at least since the 1920s that foreigners ought to be excluded from moving here, or even from visiting, for some kinds of radical politics. I also find this notion concerning, I just want to point out that it's in some sense a 100-year-old concept rather than like a 1-month-old concept.
    - scarecrowbob 1y ago
      I understand that your theory holds a lot of sway. I am not in favor of doing anything that cedes more power to the assholes who want it. I'm not a legal scholar but it certainly feels like "removing citizenship from classes of folks" so that they can be deported to purify the body of the volk is a thing that has been done, so anything that we can to maintain the rights of non-citizens seems to be reflexively self-interested. I do understand that the government of the US will do whatever it feels like- it's never felt like that they wouldn't, like, drone strike a citizen if they felt like it. As much as I despise the views of folks like Randy Weaver, it's been a long time since I thought the US might not just shoot folks if it felt like it to. So here is a question: if they don't really care much about the doctrines of laws, why should me and mine?
  - pryce 1y ago
    We often accept some limits on speech - such as disallowing threats or blackmail. But on what planet is some person stating that Charlie Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" an endorsement of Kirk's murder? How is anyone supposed to believe the administration is being at all genuine when it categorizes that sentence as an endorsement of murder and then applies punitive action toward the man who wrote it? Are we now at the point where (in Soviet Russian style) the government gleefully makes absurd factual claims and administers capricious punishments specifically as a demonstration of the government power to oppress?
- ajross 1y ago
  Not sure where you're going with this. Obviously the immigrants who were speaking are the ones whose speech is being regulated by the government. If you want to argue that immigrants don't have protection under the first amendment, clearly they do per centuries of jurisprudence. If you want to argue that this is one of those "no freedom from consequences" situations, recognize that this isn't a private party. You or I can cancel someone by refusing to deal with them, but the government is expressly prohibited from from doing so by the clear text of the first amendment.
- pryce 1y ago
  There is an old joke attributed (variously) to Ronald Reagan or Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, there is freedom of speech. In America, there is also freedom after speech." Government sanctions (not simply those limited to imprisonment) used as a punishment for speech is most definitely a free speech issue.
- Cody-99 1y ago
  Stop trolling.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
senectus1 1y ago
I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens. Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.
- stephen_g 1y ago
  These seem to be deportations of people already in the country which is vastly different. But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".
- b0sk 1y ago
  So hypothetically, a future Dem administration can deport right-leaning visa holders?
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first. I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
    - happytoexplain 1y ago
      You make it sound like you get to be the decider on whether the specific case is comparable or not. Also note that in order to remove your comment, a clear case would have to exist in the first place. > comments will state that the other side did it first. That is exactly the excuse they are using for a lot of this type of sick behavior/policy, despite the examples being weak.
- Cheer2171 1y ago
  Tell me where in the first amendment it says these rights only apply to citizens.
stronglikedan 1y ago
Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".
- Calvin02 1y ago
  Could you share some examples of when democrats have denied visas?
  - cudgy 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - muwtyhg 1y ago
      > Without a doubt, Democrats have denied visas. You provided zero evidence that Democrats have denied visas based on social media posts. You just mentioned the number of border crossings in 2021 to 2025. What point are you trying to make here?
      - cudgy 1y ago
        Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Democrats have never denied a visa? Oh. I see now that you added “based on social media posts”. Still, I fail to believe that Democrats would admit someone into the country knowing that they posted something on social media that demonstrated the applicant is lying, made threats against political figures in the US, posted to known terrorist or friends with known terrorists, etc. In fact, the Biden administration sued for the ability to continue the Trump policy of looking into social media. Here is an excerpt from the lawyer that was suing the Biden administration. “We’re disappointed that the Biden administration has decided to double down on this Trump-era policy of mass surveillance of visa applicants’ social media,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute.”” https://knightcolumbia.org/content/biden-administration-tells-court-it-plans-to-keep-trump-era-social-media-vetting-policy-for-visa-applicants https://knightcolumbia.org/content/biden-administration-tell...
refurb 1y ago
I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray. No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  During the biden administration I had dozens of people tell me that they were criticizing the biden administration because of their free speech absolutism. Absolutism. The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist. That vanished into the wind.
  - refurb 1y ago
    Free speech absolutism obviously comes with caveats like inciting violence. This particular situation is no different. I see no change in stance.
    - happytoexplain 1y ago
      "Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of). The stance flipped polarity utterly.
      - refurb 1y ago
        "Inciting violence" has a specific definition as defined by the courts. It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group". It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.
        UncleMeat 1y ago
ValveFan6969 1y ago
[flagged]
- Calvin02 1y ago
  What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused. > In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
  - ValveFan6969 1y ago
    Who is it that conveniently cut out the cruder bits of that post? https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
    - locopati 1y ago
      And what's your excuse for most of the Republican party and its media supporters who regularly call for violence against people they don't like?
    - pas 1y ago
      please point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
      - ValveFan6969 1y ago
        You do realize what happened with Charlie Kirk is the apex of what happens when dehumanization language is left unfettered, right?
        tastyface 1y ago

“Party of free speech” (tm)

SoftTalker 1y ago

[flagged]

gregjw 1y ago
Revoking visas for exercising freedom of speech is infringing freedom of speech.
Loudergood 1y ago
Clear government penalties for speech.
scarecrowbob 1y ago
I'm a citizen and describing speech I may engage in such as saying that Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric” as something that the government doesn't approve of creates a chilling standard for my own speech. So my speech, you authoritarian jerk. I should be able to say stuff like that- why the fuck should the government get to say what is okay for folks to say?
- aaomidi 1y ago
  Second this and even when these restrictions apply to foreign nationals as visa enforcement it’s still a chilling effect on American citizens.
  - scarecrowbob 1y ago
    Not to understate the actual reason that I find authoritarian controls on speech outrageous: I 100% agree that it's wrong to revoke visas over politically-protected speech. I just find it easier to communicate "a basic sense of self interest" to the sociopaths who are happy to see state power used against strangers their country is hosting. If the state can do it to those folks, they will eventually do it to you and I. It used to be the case that treating strangers and foreigners -better- than we might treat ourselves was a goal for humans. You can read it in the religious texts of the assholes I live around who pretend that their religion should rule all the subjects of the land they have occupied.
    - schoen 1y ago
      It's interesting to see the positive views of benevolence, tolerance, hospitality, and justice toward strangers in many of the ancient Mediterranean cultures. I wonder how typical or atypical those are across time and across cultures, and what kinds of limitations are placed on them. Apart from Exodus 23:9 and similar commandments (and specific stories of hospitality in the Bible), I think of the idea of ξενία xenia from ancient Greek culture, and then the proverbially famous Arab and Middle Eastern hospitality today.
- schoen 1y ago
  The legal theory is that you, as a citizen, have a clear free speech right to say that, but that foreigners outside the U.S. don't have any free speech right at all under the U.S. constitution to say that. (In a related legal doctrine, denying people a visa in retaliation for their specific actions is officially "not a punishment".) I think this theory is pretty broken, but I also find that there are a lot of things where longstanding legal doctrines give the government humongous amounts of power and discretion, and they often did not just, like, make up the concept just 10 minutes ago. Often it's arguably been the rule for many decades. The thing that I'm more familiar with in this category is border searches. My mom was surprised to hear that people's devices (including U.S. citizens' devices) were being searched at the border without suspicion, something that would obviously violate the fourth amendment in a regular domestic context. Something my mom didn't know, but I happened to know from having studied and written about this in the past, is that we have legal precedents going back decades that specifically say that that is a power that the government has. Now, I would like to see a rule that the fourth amendment does apply at the border, but we've been far away from that for years, with important cases in 2004 and 1985 and even longer ago saying that it doesn't. (In this case, it is held not to apply to either citizens or non-citizens in the border search context.) So, I would encourage people to have a broader sense of historical perspective about the staggering amount of power and discretion that the government has repeatedly been given, and the considerable number of limitations that have been held to apply to various legal rights, while also opposing this and trying to change it. Edit: In terms of foreigners' political expression, I believe we've had rules in the U.S. at least since the 1920s that foreigners ought to be excluded from moving here, or even from visiting, for some kinds of radical politics. I also find this notion concerning, I just want to point out that it's in some sense a 100-year-old concept rather than like a 1-month-old concept.
  - scarecrowbob 1y ago
    I understand that your theory holds a lot of sway. I am not in favor of doing anything that cedes more power to the assholes who want it. I'm not a legal scholar but it certainly feels like "removing citizenship from classes of folks" so that they can be deported to purify the body of the volk is a thing that has been done, so anything that we can to maintain the rights of non-citizens seems to be reflexively self-interested. I do understand that the government of the US will do whatever it feels like- it's never felt like that they wouldn't, like, drone strike a citizen if they felt like it. As much as I despise the views of folks like Randy Weaver, it's been a long time since I thought the US might not just shoot folks if it felt like it to. So here is a question: if they don't really care much about the doctrines of laws, why should me and mine?
- pryce 1y ago
  We often accept some limits on speech - such as disallowing threats or blackmail. But on what planet is some person stating that Charlie Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" an endorsement of Kirk's murder? How is anyone supposed to believe the administration is being at all genuine when it categorizes that sentence as an endorsement of murder and then applies punitive action toward the man who wrote it? Are we now at the point where (in Soviet Russian style) the government gleefully makes absurd factual claims and administers capricious punishments specifically as a demonstration of the government power to oppress?
ajross 1y ago
Not sure where you're going with this. Obviously the immigrants who were speaking are the ones whose speech is being regulated by the government. If you want to argue that immigrants don't have protection under the first amendment, clearly they do per centuries of jurisprudence. If you want to argue that this is one of those "no freedom from consequences" situations, recognize that this isn't a private party. You or I can cancel someone by refusing to deal with them, but the government is expressly prohibited from from doing so by the clear text of the first amendment.
pryce 1y ago
There is an old joke attributed (variously) to Ronald Reagan or Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, there is freedom of speech. In America, there is also freedom after speech." Government sanctions (not simply those limited to imprisonment) used as a punishment for speech is most definitely a free speech issue.
Cody-99 1y ago
Stop trolling.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

senectus1 1y ago

I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens. Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.

stephen_g 1y ago
These seem to be deportations of people already in the country which is vastly different. But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".
b0sk 1y ago
So hypothetically, a future Dem administration can deport right-leaning visa holders?
- mlrtime 1y ago
  Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first. I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
  - happytoexplain 1y ago
    You make it sound like you get to be the decider on whether the specific case is comparable or not. Also note that in order to remove your comment, a clear case would have to exist in the first place. > comments will state that the other side did it first. That is exactly the excuse they are using for a lot of this type of sick behavior/policy, despite the examples being weak.
Cheer2171 1y ago
Tell me where in the first amendment it says these rights only apply to citizens.

stronglikedan 1y ago

Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".

Calvin02 1y ago
Could you share some examples of when democrats have denied visas?
- cudgy 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - muwtyhg 1y ago
    > Without a doubt, Democrats have denied visas. You provided zero evidence that Democrats have denied visas based on social media posts. You just mentioned the number of border crossings in 2021 to 2025. What point are you trying to make here?
    - cudgy 1y ago
      Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Democrats have never denied a visa? Oh. I see now that you added “based on social media posts”. Still, I fail to believe that Democrats would admit someone into the country knowing that they posted something on social media that demonstrated the applicant is lying, made threats against political figures in the US, posted to known terrorist or friends with known terrorists, etc. In fact, the Biden administration sued for the ability to continue the Trump policy of looking into social media. Here is an excerpt from the lawyer that was suing the Biden administration. “We’re disappointed that the Biden administration has decided to double down on this Trump-era policy of mass surveillance of visa applicants’ social media,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute.”” https://knightcolumbia.org/content/biden-administration-tells-court-it-plans-to-keep-trump-era-social-media-vetting-policy-for-visa-applicants https://knightcolumbia.org/content/biden-administration-tell...

refurb 1y ago

I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray. No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.

UncleMeat 1y ago
During the biden administration I had dozens of people tell me that they were criticizing the biden administration because of their free speech absolutism. Absolutism. The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist. That vanished into the wind.
- refurb 1y ago
  Free speech absolutism obviously comes with caveats like inciting violence. This particular situation is no different. I see no change in stance.
  - happytoexplain 1y ago
    "Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of). The stance flipped polarity utterly.
    - refurb 1y ago
      "Inciting violence" has a specific definition as defined by the courts. It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group". It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.
      - UncleMeat 1y ago

ValveFan6969 1y ago

[flagged]

Calvin02 1y ago
What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused. > In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
- ValveFan6969 1y ago
  Who is it that conveniently cut out the cruder bits of that post? https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
  - locopati 1y ago
    And what's your excuse for most of the Republican party and its media supporters who regularly call for violence against people they don't like?
  - pas 1y ago
    please point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
    - ValveFan6969 1y ago
      You do realize what happened with Charlie Kirk is the apex of what happens when dehumanization language is left unfettered, right?
      - tastyface 1y ago