Comment by donatj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by donatj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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

Read that, please.

I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.

The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...

The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.

I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.

The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.

> Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.

How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?

I've got very mixed feelings on that.

I'm not entirely sure that someone should be able to come into another country as a non-citizen and go around drumming up support for our foreign enemies. I can tell you no other country on Earth would put up with that.

Whether or not the first amendment applies to non-citizens, especially non-permanent residents is clearly hotly debated. I can see both sides of it.

The almost perfectly clean split across the Federalist/Democratic-Republican line that the founders had on the Alien and Sedition Act I think makes pretty clear that even the founders didn't agree on whether or not it did.

They are welcome to bring up such arguments at a trial, where they can be contested fairly before judge, jury, and the general public.

Jury trials are another important constitutional right that's being infringed. Until the facts are resolved fairly, those accusations are suspect.

I will also remind you that some of those affected are (were?) permanent residents. If they can take that away without due process, it's only a matter of time before citizens are also on the chopping block.

What's the problem here, exactly?

Visas are granted as an extension of this country's good will, and if you violate that good will the visa is revoked. Is your issue that you don't believe the conduct to be worthy of revoking the visa? Honestly, it's a little irritating that people think it's normal for these visas to be so liberally granted in the first place. That's probably why we're in this situation at all.

The Visa isn’t being denied for a crime. It’s targeting specific speech of protestors and that should be unconstitutional. Anti-BDS laws fall in the same category and those impact US citizens. You can refuse to hire based on beliefs but the government has no right to tell you what to say. If you commit a crime or materially support terrorism you have a day in court.

Not following. These visas are at the pleasure of the government. The argument you're making is that once these visas are granted we are conferring the same rights as those of citizens, which is not true. If someone gets a student visa and comes here, to go to Columbia or NYU or Stanford or wherever, and all they do is agitate protests and cause trouble it seems reasonable that this visa should be revoked, yes? They are not studying, they are doing foreign activism. That's all well and good, but student visas are supposed to be for people who want to be ... students.

And where in the Constitution do we find this notion of "rights of citizens". The Constitution governs how the federal government is allowed to act and the powers it has been given (by the states and people).

Seems unrelated to my point. A visa is a privilege that can be revoked for bad or antisocial behavior. It would be very problematic if that were not the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com