[flagged]
In fact, the same Secretary of State who deported this man from the US for his speech (amongst dozens of other such deportations[1]) has announced a policy meant to prevent other countries from doing the exact same thing.[2] "Free speech for me, but not for thee."
[1]: https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-fr...
[2]: https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-pol...
The denied person seems to be a foreign national and by all looks of it, an activist, taking part in university protests. It doesn't seem all that surprising that he got denied entry.
If you yourself are a citizen, I'm sure you can express your views and not be sent anywhere. You can also vote to get people in power who are more to your liking, or even attempt be one of those people yourself.
I recommend starting with the US Constitution at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_S...
Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.
What the police did here doesn't hold up to even the most stringent possible definition of "freedom of speech", and it's also obviously unconstitutional. And there are still people trying to defend it. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted.
> They just came out and said it:
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
https://bsky.app/profile/alistairkitchen.bsky.social/post/3l...
You want foreign protesters in your country?
To reiterate: when reading, load the words in front of you into your brain.
> They just came out and said it:
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
Yes, my opinion is that there should be no legal consequences for speech. And again, that is the US Secretary of State's opinion too — just only for US nationals traveling to foreign countries, not vice versa.
The government shall not take action in response to his constitutionally protected rights because the laws to authorize that action shall not exist.
(Corporal punishment is when it's physical pain. I don't think a sore bum from an airplane seat counts.)
I understand what corporal punishment is. My point is that the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of "free speech" does not preclude it.
Under the current regime US citizens have already been deported to countries they have never visited.
Either way, they made certain forms of speech de facto illegal and we're not going to go all "free speech" a few years after people on the right were fired or kicked out of school for expressing wrongthink.
Has anyone been charged with assault by the state for their speech? No.
Private schools and private employers are private entities (it’s in the name) ergo they do not have to respect the First Amendment. In fact they have First Amendment rights to kick out whoever they want, free of government compelling them otherwise.
Incredible eh?
For an instance of how bad free speech can get, look no further than the role RTLM played in the genocide of the Tutsi in 1994.
Defamation is extremely hard to stick in the US.
You also are allowed in general to call for violence in the US. Incitement is very specific and not merely "calling for violence."
> we don't have a right to say what we want with no consequence.
Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence. There are extremely, extremely narrow exceptions. Way, way narrower than most people on either side of the political aisle intuit.
For an instance of how great free speech can get, look no further than the role the 1st Amendment has played in creating a highly adaptive society that, despite the internal chaos, conquers most of its challenges.
> Yes, in the US you absolutely are allowed to say what you want with no state-sanctioned consequence.
When has this ever really benefited us? We complain endlessly but fix nothing. What value have unanswered complaints?
You're going to have to more fully flesh out whatever train of thought you just showed the caboose of.
If you don't want to or do not feel equipped to reply to my thoughts you can do just that—not reply.
> but I'm still unconvinced "free speech" is a meaningful term
It is demonstrably a meaningful term given that it has prevented the imprisonment of countless people who have been unfriendly towards the state or other powers that be at various times in our history. You can look for "landmark 1st Amendment cases" for an extremely partial list. In reality the bulk of the power is in the deterrent effect against the state pursuing action against private entities for expressing themselves, and the obverse effect that private parties aren't afraid of the state when expressing themselves.
> or that it's necessary for industrialization with private investment.
Not sure what you're getting at here, but it doesn't matter whether it's "necessary" for anything. It's in the Constitution. If you want to debate changing the Constitution you can go ahead and do that, but I won't spend my time engaging with it.
> When has this ever really benefited us?
Every day! It is literally benefiting you right now. You're aware that these very comments, in a regime with weaker protections, would put you at risk? And that even if the odds are remote, you would experience a chilling effect on sharing your thoughts with me here?
This all sounded pretty abstract to me too until I spent some time in a truly authoritarian country. I went on a date and casually asked the lady "so what's it like living under [ head of state ]?" What was a warm and friendly evening immediately turned as she glanced over her shoulder and completely clammed up, hurrying us onto a different topic. That reaction sent chills down my spine, and if you're an American and have zero concept of what any of this stuff means in the real world, it would've sent chills down yours too.
You can just say "first amendment protections" rather than the disingenuous "free speech"
> Not sure what you're getting at here, but it doesn't matter whether it's "necessary" for anything. It's in the Constitution. If you want to debate changing the Constitution you can go ahead and do that, but I won't spend my time engaging with it.
You were the person that identified free speech as a reason for western dominance. I'm saying it doesn't appear to be related at all.
> is literally benefiting you right now. You're aware that these very comments, in a regime with weaker protections, would put you at risk
I don't give a damn. No amount of free speech will help the homeless, so fuck it. Let's get real rights in this country. All americans do is complain and complain and complain, so I see it as a marker of american complacency that they don't actually want anything to improve.
Watching this happen twice has really killed the idea that polls are a useful way to determine mandates for government policy in my mind. Most of the population probably just shouldn't be involved.
They will claim the government pressured private platforms despite 1) the platforms never claiming coercion, 2) the moderation actions aligning with the platforms' own content policies, 3) the platforms routinely denying government requests for content moderation, 4) there being no evidence of an implicit or explicit government threat towards the platforms.
Restrictions on speech far predate either social media or section 230. If you want to call this censorship—sure, by all means. I don't personally think it is very objectionable appropriately characterized in a situation with consequences.
And, by design, it won't affect most people. Except the people who have the chutzpah to speak out against israel, of course—good luck finding that on cable tv or the opinion column. That shit is only on social media.
Constitutional rights aren't conditional on US citizenship unless explicitly stated. [0]
[0] https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
> It doesn't seem all that surprising that he
> got denied entry. [because he was]
1> an activist
2> taking part in university protests
3> foreign
As an American, I have a right to hear the speech of foreign students and citizens. The government does not have the power to prevent me from hearing what they have to say. Small or large scale does not matter.
Stanley v Georgia: "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is fundamental to our free society."
Does this mean physically hearing this person? Because if not, then the blog and the socials will continue to be there.
The rights are that Gov shall make no law prohibiting speech and assembly.
By extension, Gov shall not perform actions in response to speech and assembly, because the laws to authorize those actions shall not exist.
Yes.
> Would you say freedom of speech and freedom of assembly means that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States?
I wouldn't say that because it isn't a well formed question. It conflates multiple, distinct activities. It unhelpfully presents them as if they were a single, constitutionally addressable action, which they are not.
You have remarkably strident opinions about a country, and its laws and norms, that you claim to be unfamiliar with and not a part of.