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.
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.
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 evidence that yes, indeed, citizens and non-citizens do not share the same rights. There is a long history to back this up.
Which I hope to see prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in coming years. MAGA need to be purged like the communists.
It is disgusting what has been allowed to fester on hackernews
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.
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
"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...
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.
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?