Free speech in the US

[rambot]

"The people," not "People." Not surprising that the civil law doesn't pontificate on natural rights.

So you agree that it doesn't say "citizens". Glad you've got there.

Or if you want to say that non-citizens have "free speech rights" but can be deported for speech that is deemed dangerous, that's fine. That's what is happening, and it is well within law and precedent. It would be nutty beyond belief for a country to give full free speech and non-deportation rights to non-citizens.

Just to be clear:
Your argument is that there should be a TWO tier legal system in the US.




Well, we just keep sinkining lower don't we?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok but you don't really address that the difference between coming (on the left) from private corporations and the current consequences coming from the government.

Doesn't that seem like a pretty major difference in terms of...say, cultural implications? I mean, yes, losing a job is tough. But getting jailed or kicked out of a country is moreso.

I'd argue that those speech restrictions we saw coming from some private companies were coming at the behest of the government, sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly.

Directly, for instance, like when the senate hauls a bunch of tech CEOs up to a grilling session where they ask "whaddya gonna do about this misinformation we don't like? It'd be a shame if something happened to your platform protections", and in light of some of them like Zuckerberg now saying he didn't want to do some of the censorship, but felt pressured by the government to do it, that was heavy coercion...it's not as if Meta wanted less revenue.


With regards to getting jailed or kicked out of the country for speech, can you point to a specific example in which there weren't extenuating circumstances?

Keeping in mind

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen (including a green card holder) can be deported if they provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This includes financial support, training, services, or certain forms of advocacy. If a green card holder is found to have incited, endorsed, or recruited for terrorism, that could also be grounds for removal.


In all of the high-profile cases I've seen in the news, one of the two bolded aspects have applied.

By the letter of the law, a green card holder does have stricter enforcement consequences than a citizen in that regard.

 

[zippy2006]

So you agree that it doesn't say "citizens". Glad you've got there.

"Citizen" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. On your reasoning that means it isn't about citizens at all. Apparently it's a charter of human rights that has nothing in particular to do with the United States. You're engaged in some pretty intense wishful thinking, here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your argument is that there should be a TWO tier legal system in the US.

With regards to full-fledged citizens vs. green card holders, that's always been the case, I didn't realize that was controversial.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there are certain offenses, that if committed by a non-citizen (including a green card holder), will come with a different set of consequences than if committed by a citizen.

Even for non-criminal matters there are two sets of legal rules for citizens and green card holders.

Rules pertaining to:
Voting, eligibility for federal government employment, gun rights, jury duty, ability to obtain a US passport... just to name a few.

 

[rambot]

I'd argue that those speech restrictions we saw coming from some private companies were coming at the behest of the government, sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly.

1) Let's pretend, that that is totally true (which I am of two minds about....).
So what?
The implication then, would be that that person could not post there anymore and that would be the extent of the punishment.

2) Am I supposed to believe the same thing wouldn't be happenning under a Trump government?

Directly, for instance, like when the senate hauls a bunch of tech CEOs up to a grilling session where they ask "whaddya gonna do about this misinformation we don't like? It'd be a shame if something happened to your platform protections", and in light of some of them like Zuckerberg now saying he didn't want to do some of the censorship, but felt pressured by the government to do it, that was heavy coercion...it's not as if Meta wanted less revenue.


With regards to getting jailed or kicked out of the country for speech, can you point to a specific example in which there weren't extenuating circumstances?

Keeping in mind

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen (including a green card holder) can be deported if they provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This includes financial support, training, services, or certain forms of advocacy. If a green card holder is found to have incited, endorsed, or recruited for terrorism, that could also be grounds for removal.


In all of the high-profile cases I've seen in the news, one of the two bolded aspects have applied.

"Certain forms of advocacy"...well geez. You're saying that applied hey? You could understand how that's so far from convincing I have to giggle....and ditto with the word "endorsed". IS there a precise LIST of exactly what they could or could not do?

Sure. And immigrants in the US have attended protests...for decades. And now we have an adminstration that is willing to be VERY generous with thier definitons and application of vague generalities. What is different about this situation other than who is in charge?

 

[rambot]

"Citizen" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. On your reasoning that means it isn't about citizens at all.

Perfect! So the Bill of Rigths applies to ALL PEOPLE within the United states.

Apparently it's a charter of human rights that has nothing in particular to do with the United States.

Well, as opposed to a "Charter" of human rights, it's called a "Bill" of Rights and it was created by the United States of America. And, this Bill of Rights, covers the physical jurisdiction of the United States...so in that way it has a lot to do with the United States.

You're engaged in some pretty intense wishful thinking, here.

Please don't suggest that my argument isn't grounded in basic reading comprehension and reality. Recall, you are the poster who hasn't demonstrated the that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens and yet continue to claim it does so.

Out of curiousity, when my parents (who snowbird in Mesa Arizona) go down there for 4 months, is your argument that they are NOT covered by the Bill of Rights? Like, they don't get due process under law?

Come on man. Don't be silly. Of COURSE it applies to everyone. You're not a third world banana republic....as much as some may hope to drag you all down there.

 

[zippy2006]

Please don't suggest that my argument isn't grounded in basic reading comprehension and reality.

You are sorely in need of reading comprehension and basic rationality. A country's laws and especially its legal rights apply primarily to the members (citizens) of that country. Crazy, I know. An illegal immigrant does not have the same rights as a green card holder, and a green card holder does not have the same rights as a citizen, etc.

 

[rambot]

You are sorely in need of reading comprehension and basic rationality.

You're trying to insult me but it doesn't make sense. What have I read that you think I don't understand? Why don't you address the MYRIAD of points I laid out in my post and instead just repeat yourself? I've understood what you said every time you repeat yourself.

A country's laws and especially its legal rights apply primarily to the members (citizens) of that country. Crazy, I know. An illegal immigrant does not have the same rights as a green card holder, and a green card holder does not have the same rights as a citizen, etc.

You are just repeating yourself. Did you have actuall have a legal basis for your argument?

Do you think that my parents, when they visit Arizona would NOT be afforded due process as outlined in the Bill or Rights?

 

[loveofourlord]

It is my impression that free speech in the USA is mostly defined by the right being allowed to insult people they don't like. Anything else is not that important.

I remember listening to a podcast, and heard similra sentiment across the US was that a cop felt his free speach was being infringed upon, not becused he couldn't say bigoted slurs and things about LGBTQ, but because other peoples free speach calling him on it, made him feel bad so he self censored.

 

[loveofourlord]

There is nothing polite about bashing my country, it's only acceptable for my countrymen to do it.


Hypocrite! Seems rude to me. Out

Funny how suddenly it's bad to bad mouth a country after months of trump insulting and threatening canada for being invaded.

 

[Laodicean60]

Funny how suddenly it's bad to bad mouth a country after months of trump insulting and threatening canada for being invaded.

I didn't know Trump was in these forums.

 

[loveofourlord]

I didn't know Trump was in these forums.

no, but if the god king is out there insulting Canada and not seeing a lot of negative responsees from the right here, not much different. Plus a HUGE difference in some random joe doing it, and the president of the united states making threats. No one in canada is laughing.

 

[DaisyDay]

There are degrees, but a full civil right to free speech only applies to citizens. If you don't understand that legal rights apply to legal citizens, I'm not sure what to tell you. Else, look up "argument from silence."

It's always surprising how little we Americans know of our own laws, but free speech has up until now been for everyone, citizen or alien.

Because the Constitution was written for American citizens, unless otherwise specified, like the 14th amendment "All" persons born....

The Constitution may have been written for American citizens, but everyone has rights under our laws.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

1) Let's pretend, that that is totally true (which I am of two minds about....).
So what?
The implication then, would be that that person could not post there anymore and that would be the extent of the punishment.

2) Am I supposed to believe the same thing wouldn't be happenning under a Trump government?

The implications were far more sweeping with regards to people's livelihoods.


Take for instance Peter McCullough, because he had a "non-mainstream" position on covid, they yanked his credentials and made him a pariah in the medical community.

And that was someone who was the Chief of Medicine at Baylor, and one of the most cited cardiologists in history (with over 80,000 other PhD's and MD's citing his work in their research)

I'm not aware of a similar thing happening to any progressive academics under Trump. He may trash talk them in ways that are a national embarrassment and don't reflect well on us and seem petty and childish, but has there been any major moves by his administration to say "you'll never work in this field again" if they disagreed with him?

"Certain forms of advocacy"...well geez. You're saying that applied hey? You could understand how that's so far from convincing I have to giggle....and ditto with the word "endorsed". IS there a precise LIST of exactly what they could or could not do?

Sure. And immigrants in the US have attended protests...for decades. And now we have an adminstration that is willing to be VERY generous with thier definitons and application of vague generalities. What is different about this situation other than who is in charge?

While I'd agree that the wording of the law itself is a bit vaguer than I'd prefer, the circumstances are a little less vague...

If someone is affiliated (and not only affiliated, but the de facto spokesman for) this group:

Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas

Columbia University Apartheid Divest has withdrawn an apology it made last spring for a member who said “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

www.nytimes.com

(and this is from the NY Times, certainly not a right-wing hit piece...NY Times is pretty progressive)

Being a ranking member of a group that's overtly praised Hamas and Hezbollah (by name), and issuing statements like "Zionists don't deserve to live" would certainly fall into the category of advocating for terrorist groups, would it not?


If I were living in India, in a status in which I wasn't a full-fledged citizen, but rather a lesser status that just granted me residency privileges, and I hit the streets with bullhorn saying "Anyone who supports the caste system doesn't deserve to live", and specifically, and very publicly, praised groups that attacked Sikh and Hindu temples... I shouldn't pretend to be shocked when they kick my honky ass out of their country, correct?

The non-citizen activists in question, were expressing anti-Jewish sentiments in NYC of all places, home to the 2nd largest Jewish population outside of Israel. They didn't think praising Hamas and Hezbollah and saying "Zionists don't deserve to live" was going to catch them any flak?

 

[rambot]

I guess they mistakenly thought that there were no limits to free speech in the US.

 

[zippy2006]

It's always surprising how little we Americans know of our own laws, but free speech has up until now been for everyone, citizen or alien.

It doesn't surprise me, but a good starting point to remedy your ignorance would be Thomas Healey's The Great Dissent. The idea that non-citizens have a strong post-publication free speech right, especially with respect to things like deportation, is historically and legally incorrect.

 

[NxNW]

Maybe try citing an example of what you are talking about. Is this the idea that non-citizens have free speech rights in the U.S.? Because the First Amendment does not give civil free speech rights to non-citizens.

The Constitution does not "give" any rights to anyone. It enumerates our rights and places limits on the government's ability to violate them.