Hacker News Reader

Comment by malfist | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe we're at the point in history where criticizing our president is labeled "potential terrorism" and used to punish people.

Free speech is literally the first right granted by the bill of rights. Criticism of our president has _always_ been allowed.

View on HN

Supposedly for the French guy that you are referring to it was because he had confidential information on his phone from JPL, and not for the reason the French minister was saying.

But I find that hard to believe - that someone in CBP would recognize what’s confidential government information, and then just deport him and not arrest him for spying…. I did find it curious though that the French guy himself never said it was for his messages about trump - only some people in the French government were saying that.

Yet none of this is ever cleared up in the public sphere. Obviously something more is going on between USA and France.

I don’t know that it’s “obvious” that anything more is happening than the simplest explanation that the current administration (and its lackeys at the lower rungs of government power) is delighting in humiliating and disempowering its critics, domestic and foreign.

Yes because that always happens. Did you not notice the last decade of negative press on Trump and other Republicans? That's just noise and frankly I'm baffled I have to explain this.

France is probably one of the most capable military intelligence centers in Europe, have a large amount of nuclear power and supporting infrastructure and is a Muslim stronghold in some areas. So clearly, something more than just surface level WWE-style drama is going on.

I think a lot of news stories are pushed out too soon without proper context, leading to sensationalized headlines that fuel the doomers.

Maybe some of these stories shouldn't even be news... because the details that come later usually turn it into a nothingburger. Like of course someone is going to be detained if the government legitimately believes they could be connected to a terrorist, nobody is getting upset at THAT.

And if these news stories WERE actually something that was happening regularly, it wouldn't even BE news anymore. The mere fact that it's a headline is supposed to mean it's something NOT normal that's going on.

Right but you would expect an administration of the party which likes to yell about free speech to come out and try to reduce the concerns about free speech restrictions. As a self labeled free speech crusader Musk should be absolutely distraught that the administration is considering protests against Tesla terrorism. The comments above boil down to: when someone shows you who they are believe them.

Burning teslas is literally the definition of terrorism.

> I did find it curious though that the French guy himself never said it was for his messages about trump

I wouldn’t want to be the next public target for Musk and Trump, either.

So he had confidential US documents and they did not arrest him? Or he had confidential French documents, the CBP recognized that, and sent him back? The initial stories reported messages criticizing Trump and his science cuts. From a scientist, going to a science convention. CBP being thuggish is the simplest and stupidest explanation making it most likely.

It's not just the French researcher (and I agree with you about the CBP's suspect official statement); three members of a British punk band were also recently denied entry for an "another issue, which they wouldn’t disclose": https://consequence.net/2025/03/uk-subs-detained-denied-entr...

Source for this supposition? This is the first I've heard of it

Isn't this something which Craig Murray was highlighting in the context of the Julian Assange extradition case?

Namely that the US Government argues that the 1st Amendment "free speech" right only applies to US Citizens.

The deal to drop the extradition of Assange only came about after the UK Judge quizzed in on if Assange would be able to depend upon that protection, rather than simply assert it (and have it denied).

So I'd not be surprised at a French citizen not having "free speech" in the USA.

It is weird... The 'potential terrorist' was sent back because

"US authorities accused the scientist of sending "hateful and conspiratorial messages" related to the Trump administration's treatment of scientists and scientific research."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/french-scientist-denied...

That's dramatically different than going to the funeral for a terrorist leader, or making statements supporting terror-bringing organizations...

If you read the article, these people are not citizens of the united states...

The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders, not just citizens. In any case, it's an absurd argument to essentially say, "meh, he was a foreigner, it's fine".

> The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders

Moreover, the First Amendment is held (not just philosophically, but this is the legal theory behind its incorporation against the states under the 14th Amendment) to be declarative of a universal right (a right "fundamental to ordered liberty"). It is therefore monstrous to try to excuse its violation by the US government against any person subject to its power under any circumstances.

> these people are not citizens of the united states

Lovely stance... Also, the headline question is if it's safe to travel there.

Being denied entry is not a threat to your safety.

That depends what happens between being denied and getting back into a plane. Also, the current situation is not a guarantee for the future.

The Canadian woman who had her visa revoked for no reason was subsequently incarcerated under deplorable conditions and denied access to council. If I recall correctly they held her for two weeks. In batch holding without proper clothing or heat and with 24hour lighting which I believe has been previously classified as torture.

Sounds pretty unsafe to me.

Safety is not just physical violence. The threat of violence (including incarceration) is enough to make a place unsafe.

Prosecution is not Persecution. Fugitives are not refugees.

Illegally being sent to a hellish Salvadoran prison without due process sure is.

https://time.com/7269604/el-salvador-photos-venezuelan-detai...

> As Justice Francis W. Murphy described the law in his concurrence in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), “the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” [1]

[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_v._Wixon

The Constitution binds the government, it's not something applied to citizens. The government cannot infringe on speech period. Doesn't matter if they want to infringe on it for citizens, non citizens or someone living in a territory the government controls

Various court findings have decided that the bill of rights applies to non-citizens on US soil, though.

The border is where it is determined if you enter US soil or not. That's the entire point of border control.

This would imply that no part of the Constitution applies at the border either, which is surely not the case.

You don't deserve to be down voted by hackers for your comment. There is a huge difference between what rights you should have where you are born or are a citizen, and what rights you should have when you come as a guest to another country.

What rights you think you should have has nothing to do with the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com