4 ms·

"If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you

by b112 11mo ago

"If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible" If that sentence from the article is accurate, the parent poster's response makes complete and perfect sense. You don't have to like the current administration, to like a specific thing they are doing. Now is this actually what is happening? I don't know. And of course, that's a different conversation, and not what the parent poster was talking about.

kylehotchkiss 11mo ago
Is this the foreign service officers or USCIS? iirc foreign service officers have pretty wide latitude on visa approval (whose really making sure they’re checking deeply?) and have 100 other more important factors to evaluate so if that’s the case; will this really amount to many denials?
- stephenhuey 11mo ago
  Except they're under pressure to not exercise such wide latitude. A few months ago, many who had already passed the exam and were just awaiting placement found out they would have to retake the exam, a different one more to the liking of the current administration: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156979 98% of current foreign service officers who responded to a survey said morale is lower, plus the administration is laying off 1300 of them: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/state-department-morale-survey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/state-departm...
mullingitover 11mo ago
The problem is that this administration and their ilk have incompetently misinterpreted 'censorship' to mean 'not letting random strangers use your private property to publish things you don't want them to.' The only way "an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship in the United States" would be if they were an employee of the US government and they somehow violated US law to enact censorship. To review: censorship is when the government doesn't allow you to say things with your printing press. Censorship is not when private parties don't let you use their printing press.
- mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
  If I was on a telephone call which selectively declined to transmit certain words or topics to the receiving party, I would consider that a form of censorship, even if it wasn't the government doing it.
  - richrichardsson 11mo ago
    Just use a different system that didn't do that, it's your choice.
    - mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
      To that extent, government censorship isn't really censorship either then? You can just move to a different country that doesn't censor you.
      - mullingitover 11mo ago
        > You can just move to a different country that doesn't censor you. The 'Network State' fascist bros (Balaji Srinivasan, Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, et al) are the powers behind the throne of the current regime. They want to dismantle the United States and create modern-day fiefdoms where your corporate overlords dictate your rights. They are serious about doing it. "You can vote with your feet and leave our fiefdom if you don't like the lack of rights" is literally their stance.
- cobbal 11mo ago
  From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor#dictionary-entry-2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor#dictionary... > censor (verb): to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable. > also: to suppress or delete as objectionable Government censorship is a very notable class of censorship, but the word has a broader meaning.
  - mullingitover 11mo ago
RRWagner 11mo ago
Displaying Nazi symbols is allowed (protected) in the United States, but prohibited in Germany. Does that mean that any German person involved in enforcing pr even tangentially acting on that restriction would be ineligible for a U.S visa?
- herbst 11mo ago
  Obviously that is what the great leader wants for the greatest and most free country on all the earth
- account42 11mo ago
  Hopefully, yes. The free speech situation in Germany is ... not good. Completely useless and reactionary laws restricting speech of specific symbols are only a small part of it of course but any global pushback would be good.
  - sofixa 11mo ago
    > Completely useless and reactionary laws restricting speech of specific symbols are only a small part of it of course but any global pushback would be good. You do know why these laws exist, right? And they are not useless. Many terrible things happened, and tens of millions died, because an extremely hateful ideology was allowed to take hold by assaulting civil society and democracy. Banning anything related to that ideology is not only needed, not only common sense, but I'd argue the moral duty of the German people. And everyone else who witnessed it (so everyone). And for what it's worth, most developed countries have banned Nazi-related things. The US is an outlier in thinking that Nazi opinions matter, and allowing murderous types to express their desire to murder others is somehow a virtue. And to be clear, yes, National Socialism is extremely agressive and murderous. One of its core tenets, probably its main one, is violent antisemitism and "master race"-ism, with their solution being exterminating "lower" "races". Nothing useful, nothing good, nothing redeeming. Just pure hatred and genocide. Nothing good can come out of "debating" a Nazi in the "marketplace of ideas". Goebbels himself said so back in the 1930s, that they do not intend to play by the rules of democracy, but if democracy wants to give them the tools to spread their ideology, they'll happily use it. The world saw this happen and saw the results. Nazis have no place in any civilised society, and anyone espousing Nazi ideology or sporting their insignia deserves to ostracised at least.

by b112 11mo ago

kylehotchkiss 11mo ago

Is this the foreign service officers or USCIS? iirc foreign service officers have pretty wide latitude on visa approval (whose really making sure they’re checking deeply?) and have 100 other more important factors to evaluate so if that’s the case; will this really amount to many denials?

stephenhuey 11mo ago
Except they're under pressure to not exercise such wide latitude. A few months ago, many who had already passed the exam and were just awaiting placement found out they would have to retake the exam, a different one more to the liking of the current administration: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156979 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156979 98% of current foreign service officers who responded to a survey said morale is lower, plus the administration is laying off 1300 of them: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/state-department-morale-survey.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/us/politics/state-departm...

mullingitover 11mo ago

The problem is that this administration and their ilk have incompetently misinterpreted 'censorship' to mean 'not letting random strangers use your private property to publish things you don't want them to.' The only way "an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship in the United States" would be if they were an employee of the US government and they somehow violated US law to enact censorship. To review: censorship is when the government doesn't allow you to say things with your printing press. Censorship is not when private parties don't let you use their printing press.

mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
If I was on a telephone call which selectively declined to transmit certain words or topics to the receiving party, I would consider that a form of censorship, even if it wasn't the government doing it.
- richrichardsson 11mo ago
  Just use a different system that didn't do that, it's your choice.
  - mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
    To that extent, government censorship isn't really censorship either then? You can just move to a different country that doesn't censor you.
    - mullingitover 11mo ago
      > You can just move to a different country that doesn't censor you. The 'Network State' fascist bros (Balaji Srinivasan, Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, et al) are the powers behind the throne of the current regime. They want to dismantle the United States and create modern-day fiefdoms where your corporate overlords dictate your rights. They are serious about doing it. "You can vote with your feet and leave our fiefdom if you don't like the lack of rights" is literally their stance.
cobbal 11mo ago
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor#dictionary-entry-2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor#dictionary... > censor (verb): to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable. > also: to suppress or delete as objectionable Government censorship is a very notable class of censorship, but the word has a broader meaning.
- mullingitover 11mo ago

RRWagner 11mo ago

Displaying Nazi symbols is allowed (protected) in the United States, but prohibited in Germany. Does that mean that any German person involved in enforcing pr even tangentially acting on that restriction would be ineligible for a U.S visa?

herbst 11mo ago
Obviously that is what the great leader wants for the greatest and most free country on all the earth
account42 11mo ago
Hopefully, yes. The free speech situation in Germany is ... not good. Completely useless and reactionary laws restricting speech of specific symbols are only a small part of it of course but any global pushback would be good.
- sofixa 11mo ago
  > Completely useless and reactionary laws restricting speech of specific symbols are only a small part of it of course but any global pushback would be good. You do know why these laws exist, right? And they are not useless. Many terrible things happened, and tens of millions died, because an extremely hateful ideology was allowed to take hold by assaulting civil society and democracy. Banning anything related to that ideology is not only needed, not only common sense, but I'd argue the moral duty of the German people. And everyone else who witnessed it (so everyone). And for what it's worth, most developed countries have banned Nazi-related things. The US is an outlier in thinking that Nazi opinions matter, and allowing murderous types to express their desire to murder others is somehow a virtue. And to be clear, yes, National Socialism is extremely agressive and murderous. One of its core tenets, probably its main one, is violent antisemitism and "master race"-ism, with their solution being exterminating "lower" "races". Nothing useful, nothing good, nothing redeeming. Just pure hatred and genocide. Nothing good can come out of "debating" a Nazi in the "marketplace of ideas". Goebbels himself said so back in the 1930s, that they do not intend to play by the rules of democracy, but if democracy wants to give them the tools to spread their ideology, they'll happily use it. The world saw this happen and saw the results. Nazis have no place in any civilised society, and anyone espousing Nazi ideology or sporting their insignia deserves to ostracised at least.