Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiderice | Hacker News Reader

> Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.

No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.

Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.

View on HN

Absolutely not. If you find out that the person who is trying to enter the country has made creditable threats to the USA, Sure, but that's also illegal for a citizen to do. Saying that the president is a poopy-head on Facebook doesn't count, and says nothing about what said person's behavior will be like once they are in our borders.

Pretty much where I stand. Some speech is criminalized for good reason (for example, planning to commit a crime). However, barring that, no speech should penalized. In particular, speech criticizing actions of the government or a government official should be especially protected.

The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.

For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.

Private entities are a completely different conversation. It drives me up the wall when people talk about "free speech" when they have a comment deleted on social media. (I'm not saying you said this btw)

The first amendment of the US constitution grants freedom of speech to all persons. Courts have interpreted that first amendment applies broadly, even to non-citizens.

I find it hard to believe that THIS Supreme Court would re-affirm this decision if it ever came up.

You raise a good point, but I'll opine that I don't think it's necessarily a broad definition of "person" that includes non-citizens.

> We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.

Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?

The we is the people elected through democratic means to execute the law and the people they appoint.

Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Oh come on. The very reason this is even happening is because the person with less votes was installed as president in 2016.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com