6 ms·

Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world. Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...

by Zoepfli 13y ago

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I'm not even sure if free speech even applies to us Americans anymore, since immigration and the ability to board a plane to/from the states seems to not fall under any constitutional rights.
- EthanHeilman 13y ago
  We still have free-speech zones in America. So free-speech in those areas also as the police say it is ok and you are willing to be locked in a cage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
  - oellegaard 13y ago
    So happy to live in a country-wide free-speech zone here in Denmark. I'm shocked that people must hide themselves behind fences to express their opinions.
    - rwmj 13y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_... It seems circumscribed, if that Wikipedia article is correct. Blasphemy laws are one worrying aspect. On the other hand, I'd rather have even that constitutional guarantee instead of the complete lack of any guaranteed freedom of speech that is the situation in the UK.
  - captainmuon 13y ago
    This is the most disturbing thing I've seen today. I wonder whether the people who invented this realize how Orwellian it sounds.
venomsnake 13y ago
Right to free speech sadly does not conflict with the right of US to refuse entry to a person without reasons. US Visa does not guarantee entry - it is stated there in the application entry. It gives to the right to beg and immigration officer to grant you entry. And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway.
- mattmanser 13y ago
  Ever thought to ask exactly why your rights are suspended?
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Actually not my rights because I have not traveled to the US yet, but yes. Disclaimer (IANAL) The answer is has many faces - until you have entered any country you are not subject to the full jurisdiction there - Snowden was not having full rights in Moscow for the months he spent at the terminal. He was also not having full obligations - in Russia you need to register with the police as a foreigner and generally help them keep track of you when you switch your residence. So even as a US citizen while on the border you are not in the US fully. The second is that the Supreme Court has balanced the rights and obligations of the government (the right to refuse entry and the duty to protect the country) and has determined that it is greater than the rights given by the fourth amendment.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway. Isn't this a fairly recent phenomena, and predicated on dubious legal grounds? In any case, this sort of thing can only survive because people accept it (and perhaps because they may be careful not to harass influential people).
rmc 13y ago
Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world. That has always been the case with the US "right to privacy". The Snowden leaks have caused a fuss (in the USA) because it's the US Government spying on US citizens in the USA. Us foreigners have always been spied on.
- furyg3 13y ago
  Yes, but the grandparent is talking about the hypocrisy of American freedom. 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. The US goes to war to bring 'democracy' to foreign lands, but at the same time it doesn't think it's appropriate to follow it's own principles with regard to it's treatment of foreigners (and their data) at home.
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    Looks like it. Same deal with the International Tribunal for War Crimes in the Netherlands. It's "for the other guy", not for "us. We don't commit war-crimes".
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    That's generally how nations work. If you aren't subject to their laws and don't pay their taxes, you don't get the rights granted to the citizens. I can't show up in the UK and demand they treat my health problems, even though they consider health care a right (so far as I know). Not saying right or wrong, just how the system works.
    - pmr_ 13y ago
      There is a common distinction between Human Rights and Civil Rights. All of them vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but the former are granted regardless of citizenship and the later only to citizens of a state. To foreigners and law layman it often seems that the wording of the U.S. constitution means Human Rights but that has often turned out not to be the case and those are more understood as Civil Rights. Personally I have the feeling that there are no Human Rights in the U.S. given what we know about Guantanamo and NSA surveillance but I'd like to hear a more knowledgeable opinion about that.

Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world. Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...

by Zoepfli 13y ago

Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world. Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

I'm not even sure if free speech even applies to us Americans anymore, since immigration and the ability to board a plane to/from the states seems to not fall under any constitutional rights.

EthanHeilman 13y ago
We still have free-speech zones in America. So free-speech in those areas also as the police say it is ok and you are willing to be locked in a cage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
- oellegaard 13y ago
  So happy to live in a country-wide free-speech zone here in Denmark. I'm shocked that people must hide themselves behind fences to express their opinions.
  - rwmj 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_... It seems circumscribed, if that Wikipedia article is correct. Blasphemy laws are one worrying aspect. On the other hand, I'd rather have even that constitutional guarantee instead of the complete lack of any guaranteed freedom of speech that is the situation in the UK.
- captainmuon 13y ago
  This is the most disturbing thing I've seen today. I wonder whether the people who invented this realize how Orwellian it sounds.

venomsnake 13y ago

Right to free speech sadly does not conflict with the right of US to refuse entry to a person without reasons. US Visa does not guarantee entry - it is stated there in the application entry. It gives to the right to beg and immigration officer to grant you entry. And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway.

mattmanser 13y ago
Ever thought to ask exactly why your rights are suspended?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Actually not my rights because I have not traveled to the US yet, but yes. Disclaimer (IANAL) The answer is has many faces - until you have entered any country you are not subject to the full jurisdiction there - Snowden was not having full rights in Moscow for the months he spent at the terminal. He was also not having full obligations - in Russia you need to register with the police as a foreigner and generally help them keep track of you when you switch your residence. So even as a US citizen while on the border you are not in the US fully. The second is that the Supreme Court has balanced the rights and obligations of the government (the right to refuse entry and the duty to protect the country) and has determined that it is greater than the rights given by the fourth amendment.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway. Isn't this a fairly recent phenomena, and predicated on dubious legal grounds? In any case, this sort of thing can only survive because people accept it (and perhaps because they may be careful not to harass influential people).

rmc 13y ago

Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world. That has always been the case with the US "right to privacy". The Snowden leaks have caused a fuss (in the USA) because it's the US Government spying on US citizens in the USA. Us foreigners have always been spied on.

furyg3 13y ago
Yes, but the grandparent is talking about the hypocrisy of American freedom. 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. The US goes to war to bring 'democracy' to foreign lands, but at the same time it doesn't think it's appropriate to follow it's own principles with regard to it's treatment of foreigners (and their data) at home.
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  Looks like it. Same deal with the International Tribunal for War Crimes in the Netherlands. It's "for the other guy", not for "us. We don't commit war-crimes".
- cobrausn 13y ago
  That's generally how nations work. If you aren't subject to their laws and don't pay their taxes, you don't get the rights granted to the citizens. I can't show up in the UK and demand they treat my health problems, even though they consider health care a right (so far as I know). Not saying right or wrong, just how the system works.
  - pmr_ 13y ago
    There is a common distinction between Human Rights and Civil Rights. All of them vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but the former are granted regardless of citizenship and the later only to citizens of a state. To foreigners and law layman it often seems that the wording of the U.S. constitution means Human Rights but that has often turned out not to be the case and those are more understood as Civil Rights. Personally I have the feeling that there are no Human Rights in the U.S. given what we know about Guantanamo and NSA surveillance but I'd like to hear a more knowledgeable opinion about that.