Hacker News Reader

Comment by lgleason | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In some countries that might be true, but not in the US. Free speech protections apply to everyone within US borders, not just citizens. US courts have repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment to mean any person physically present in the United States, including foreign visitors, tourists, and undocumented immigrants, are protected.

I would have strongly argued in the past that the big advantage of US constitution is that nobody would need to be cautious about what political speech they post on social media and online.

It has always been legal to deny visa/entry to people based on speech and affiliation. Pretty long list of evidence for that.

As for non-citizens lawfully present in the U.S., they have more First Amendment protections than those seeking entry, but still less than citizens.

All this can get visa holders deported:

1. Material support for terrorist organizations (even verbal/written advocacy.

2. Speech deemed to violate the terms of their specific visa category.

3. False statements to immigration officials.

4. (Most obviously) Criminal convictions stemming from speech acts (fraud, threats, etc.)

I wouldn't argue that they have less First Amendment protections because, as previously described, everybody within the US has the same First Amendment protections. I think that phrasing is both misleading and dangerous.

You're just describing crimes and specific consequences of those crimes that would apply to people in certain circumstances (being a visa holder means you can be deported). Criticizing, for example, the President of United States or holding a particular political viewpoint is (currently) not a crime regardless of your citizenship, residency, or visa status.

As for the border, you can be denied entry for any reason at the whim of the border agent so none of this applies to that at all.

No, these are not crimes for all. As a citizen I am free to associate with communist parties. There’s a Communist Party USA that was a top sponsor for the most recent no kings rally. As a noncitizen I may face consequences for such associations.

It's not a crime if you are not a citizen either. If someone is denied a visa renewal, for example, just administrative -- that's not a criminal proceeding. At no point does anyone have less First Amendment protections under the law.

What does the word "material" in "material support" mean if advocacy counts?

Advocacy can count in certain situations if it’s with the purpose of facilitating the other kinds of “material” support (ie funding).

Rights aren't a citizens-or-guests thing, they're a human thing. Would (for example) homicide become right or wrong depending on an entry in a database somewhere? It's absurd to suggest that it's legal to pickpocket tourists.

That’s wrong.

Not all rights are natural rights (or human rights).

Citizens have a right to vote. Guests typically do not.

Citizens in some countries have an exclusive right to own land in those countries.

Should a visitor to a country enjoy the right to explicitly espouse opposition to that country without any negative consequence?

I would say no, and I would say the constitutional court of the US will have no problem agreeing with me. Affiliation with a communist or totalitarian party has been legally held up as a disqualification from becoming a US citizen; this is despite US citizens having the right to associate with such parties.

Ergo, citizens and guests do not hold the same rights.

>Should a visitor to a country enjoy the right to explicitly espouse opposition to that country without any negative consequence?

What I imagine is the biggest, most obvious crack in this argument, is that "the country" includes people who support every side of most issues, especially the question of how many Palestinians Israel will be allowed to kill before they're made to stop it. Arresting tourists that espouse a particular view represents once force within the US dominating another within the US.

It’s not a crack in the argument. I literally reference similar fact in the same comment, if you read to the end.

It’s evidence that yes, indeed, citizens and non-citizens do not share the same rights. There is a long history to back this up.

The bill of rights and constitution and the courts interpretation of these is crystal clear and your argument borders on treason and a subversion and "Material support for terrorist organizations (even verbal/written advocacy. "

Which I hope to see prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in coming years. MAGA need to be purged like the communists.

This is tantamount to you calling for my execution and the death of other people you perceive to be your political opponents, and ironically it’s over my exercise of speech.

It is disgusting what has been allowed to fester on hackernews

I can't believe people this damned stupid exist on HN. How is it calling for your execution? Are you fucked in the head? He's just saying terrorists should be dealt with according to the laws of the USA. Why the fuck are you feeling "being executed"?

And even if it wasn't terrorists its perfectly legal free speech to say "All muslims should be killed", "all maga to be killed". How on earth does it violate anyone's free speech? I can't even begin to understand how someone can be this stupid, this is actual mental illness level of stupidity.

Rules for thee and not for me much?lol

I think me presenting an argument that basically says that certain noncitizens to the United States face consequences when exercising certain kinds of speech that citizens do not face is substantially different from your rule that I should be executed for making that argument.

You literally used "communist" and other vague "terrorist" language to justify your bullshit as reasonable or sane. And I want that same energy turned back on MAGA . They are literally subverting our nation and more dangerous than any communist . Citizen vs non citizen is irrelevant to the constitution as you have been told repeatedly. If this is how the law is going to play out. Then I want it applied to ALL extremist and terrorists. Period.

You need to get a grip on reality for your own sake.

I mentioned both terrorist and communist for evidence-based reasons. I am literally a naturalized citizen who had to affirm he was not affiliated with communist parties when applying for citizenship in this country. The rules were literally different for me then, than they are for me now as a citizen.

Other people “pointing out” other arguments is fine - we can disagree, one or both of us can be wrong, etc. Liberalism is built on individual rights.

But you want to label people as extreme in order to kill them. I don’t know what made your heart so corrupted by hate but I hope you find your way out

You keep saying kill... I only ever said " the fullest extent of the law" I find it very telling you know the depths and criminality of this treason .... And come to the proper conclusions on your own of what the law says happens LOL

I would think the Bill of Rights applies equally to citizens or non-citizens. That includes the First Amendment. That includes the right to freedom of speech and expression of opposition to whatever he or she desires. The freedom of speech is part of the 'truths' that are self-evident. And almost every time, the Congress tried to restrict these rights, they were struck by the courts. This isn't about demolishing the state, as communists would want to do. This isn't about changing the constitutional order, as any totalitarian party would have to do. This is about a right of a person to express his or her opinion without repercussions.

"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282...

The bill of rights does not apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. There’s a deep history of cases testing most of those amendments on this line, some landing one way, some landing another, and a few “it depends”.

And a district court judge’s rather inappropriate screed sets no legal precedent. It’s old man yells at clouds. It would be relevant to discuss founding documents or Supreme Court opinions.

I never claimed it set a precedent. But a federal judge in this case claimed "The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction [between citizens and legal non-citizens] and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence."

In our history OR jurisprudence! You seem to claim otherwise, if I am not mistaken. So, it behooves you to provide evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what precedent-setting Supreme Court decision claims that the First Amendment does not apply to non-US citizens?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com