State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments | Hacker News Reader

State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments

wsj.com

95 pointsstandardUser57 comments

“Party of free speech” (tm)

I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens.

Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.

These seem to be deportations of people already in the country which is vastly different.

But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".

Tell me where in the first amendment it says these rights only apply to citizens.

Would you consider yourself a supporter of free speech?

Do you think it should apply only to citizens?

We can default to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bridges vs Wixon: "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded to aliens residing in this country.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107220981080384...

So hypothetically, a future Dem administration can deport right-leaning visa holders?

Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first.

I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.

You make it sound like you get to be the decider on whether the specific case is comparable or not.

Also note that in order to remove your comment, a clear case would have to exist in the first place.

> comments will state that the other side did it first.

That is exactly the excuse they are using for a lot of this type of sick behavior/policy, despite the examples being weak.

Note, even if this were true, the entire point of being the free speech party or being a free speech absolutist was that those people supported free speech above and beyond the legal concept of free speech. They explicitly built their free speech crusade against moderation actions on privately owned websites.

"still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter."

So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?

> Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone

It was pointed out how historically un-American this is, and your response is to say we should in fact expand this policy - to be able to kick people out of the country or deny them entry for saying things online that aren't even as dramatic, hateful, or violence-glorifying as the things that this administration's supporters constantly, constantly, constantly say, for example, about victims of police shooting or victims of mass shootings?

Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".

Could you share some examples of when democrats have denied visas?

I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray.

No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.

During the biden administration I had dozens of people tell me that they were criticizing the biden administration because of their free speech absolutism. Absolutism.

The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist.

That vanished into the wind.

Free speech absolutism obviously comes with caveats like inciting violence. This particular situation is no different.

I see no change in stance.

"Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of).

The stance flipped polarity utterly.

"Inciting violence" has a specific definition as defined by the courts.

It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group".

It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.

If we are going by the specific definition as defined by the courts then there is no way that a ton of these cases fit the bill.

The degrees of hypocrisy at play in the GOP today are striking:

Trump / Kirk U.S. Medal of Freedom hit parade...

https://www.independent.co.:uk/news/world/americas/us-politi...

Young Republican leadership's internal language about their countrymen, writ in rampant death & torture threats, unhinged bigotry and hatred, heartbreaking callousness and disregard for the welfare of others, and all of it festooned with a sociopathic posture of contrition to masquerade an utter perversion of the values of brotherhood and personal "responsibility"...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Well, I hear there are very fine people on both sides. [0]

[0] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com