It’s terrifying that anyone would not only accept forbidding travel to critics, but also thinks it’s normal. From de Toqueville and Dickens to de Beauvoir to Žižek, the US used to welcome and embrace criticism.
Have we really become as thin-skinned as North Korea?
Nice! Such a great gotcha if you've never read the Constitution or spent 30 seconds thinking about how freedom of speech works.
You're free to have an opinion and be free from state-sanctioned consequences.
You are not guaranteed to be free from private parties choosing not to affiliate with you, calling you mean names, or banning you from their platforms... for the obvious reason that protecting that right would require that the state compel specific speech from private parties, which... See Step 1!
All of this should have been covered by about 8th grade. Were you paying attention?
Well, I'm not from the US and am just observing it from quite a distance, but a good comeback to you would be that the normal administration you wish for was good at letting people in, yes.
The "normal administration" to which I'm referring would be almost any administration in US history other than the current one. Freedom of speech is — at least putatively — a bedrock principle of the US.
In fact, the same Secretary of State who deported this man from the US for his speech (amongst dozens of other such deportations[1]) has announced a policy meant to prevent other countries from doing the exact same thing.[2] "Free speech for me, but not for thee."
Does anyone anywhere qualify in this if your understanding? What does it mean to live here and not have an effect on on US politics? Can we use this same rationale to deny folks with dual citizenship office if they seek it?
He also took part in the protests of Columbia University and by the looks of it wants to continue his political agenda in a foreign country. If this happened at scale then then foreigners could come (perhaps even be imported to the US, if this were a known-to-be-usable loophole) and steer the politics of a country in some other direction. It looks like the government is trying to avoid that and, if I were a citizen, it's what I would expect it to do.
That's a really bizarre take. You think it's acceptable to deny entry to someone based on your assessment of their political opinions? Given the very directly related context that Columbia students with visas and greencards are being detained and facing deportation explicitly for their political opinions, you can't conclude this is anything other anti-speech policy. There is absolutely no threat to life or property stemming from their speech. Meanwhile, expressly pro-genocide political figures with documented history of violent crimes like Ben-Gvir are freely admitted and allowed to rile up mobs.
This person is from another country and is rather an activist than a journalist, and he also can continue to express his views to this day.
Does it not make sense to you that a country (i.e, its citizens) don't actually want foreign activists to come and steer its politics? Sounds like a recipe for country take-over if done at scale.
My recommendation is that when you're inquiring about another country's laws or norms, you actually open your ears to what they're telling you instead of just repeatedly asserting your own (as you admit) completely ignorant perspective.
The founders were proto-shitposters who ran a psyop on the public with the same technology used to print the daily paper. They knew what they were doing.
I agree with you, by the way. To a certain reading, this guy is creating a valuable resource in the attention economy: controversy. Give them a medal and a journalism grant.
It’s terrifying that anyone would not only accept forbidding travel to critics, but also thinks it’s normal. From de Toqueville and Dickens to de Beauvoir to Žižek, the US used to welcome and embrace criticism.
Have we really become as thin-skinned as North Korea?
You're free to have an opinion but not from the consequences of that opinion. Sound familiar?
Nice! Such a great gotcha if you've never read the Constitution or spent 30 seconds thinking about how freedom of speech works.
You're free to have an opinion and be free from state-sanctioned consequences.
You are not guaranteed to be free from private parties choosing not to affiliate with you, calling you mean names, or banning you from their platforms... for the obvious reason that protecting that right would require that the state compel specific speech from private parties, which... See Step 1!
All of this should have been covered by about 8th grade. Were you paying attention?
Under a normal administration that actually would be unexpected, yes.
Well, I'm not from the US and am just observing it from quite a distance, but a good comeback to you would be that the normal administration you wish for was good at letting people in, yes.
The "normal administration" to which I'm referring would be almost any administration in US history other than the current one. Freedom of speech is — at least putatively — a bedrock principle of the US.
In fact, the same Secretary of State who deported this man from the US for his speech (amongst dozens of other such deportations[1]) has announced a policy meant to prevent other countries from doing the exact same thing.[2] "Free speech for me, but not for thee."
[1]: https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-brags-hes-championing-fr...
[2]: https://www.state.gov/announcement-of-a-visa-restriction-pol...
52 replies →
> and am just observing it from quite a distance
You have remarkably strident opinions about a country, and its laws and norms, that you claim to be unfamiliar with and not a part of.
1 reply →
I can't imagine how insecure and fragile a country must be to be afraid of checks notes opinions on substack.
He also partook in protests in Columbia University last year, so in that sense he's a little more than person writing on the internet.
> He also partook in protests in Columbia University last year,
You keep restating this like it means something important. What is the important thing it indicates?
26 replies →
Freedom of assembly.
8 replies →
Does anyone anywhere qualify in this if your understanding? What does it mean to live here and not have an effect on on US politics? Can we use this same rationale to deny folks with dual citizenship office if they seek it?
Freedom of speech is not a right bestowed on citizens but an encumbrance on the government. They cannot set policy based on protected speech.
Nor is there any definition of journalist that precludes having a point of view.
This person continues to be able to speak freely.
He also took part in the protests of Columbia University and by the looks of it wants to continue his political agenda in a foreign country. If this happened at scale then then foreigners could come (perhaps even be imported to the US, if this were a known-to-be-usable loophole) and steer the politics of a country in some other direction. It looks like the government is trying to avoid that and, if I were a citizen, it's what I would expect it to do.
That's a really bizarre take. You think it's acceptable to deny entry to someone based on your assessment of their political opinions? Given the very directly related context that Columbia students with visas and greencards are being detained and facing deportation explicitly for their political opinions, you can't conclude this is anything other anti-speech policy. There is absolutely no threat to life or property stemming from their speech. Meanwhile, expressly pro-genocide political figures with documented history of violent crimes like Ben-Gvir are freely admitted and allowed to rile up mobs.
3 replies →
Do you think journalists don't have sides and don't have effects on politics?
Riddle me this: why do you think journalism is protected in this country if it is definitionally politically inert?
This person is from another country and is rather an activist than a journalist, and he also can continue to express his views to this day.
Does it not make sense to you that a country (i.e, its citizens) don't actually want foreign activists to come and steer its politics? Sounds like a recipe for country take-over if done at scale.
My recommendation is that when you're inquiring about another country's laws or norms, you actually open your ears to what they're telling you instead of just repeatedly asserting your own (as you admit) completely ignorant perspective.
3 replies →
The founders were proto-shitposters who ran a psyop on the public with the same technology used to print the daily paper. They knew what they were doing.
I agree with you, by the way. To a certain reading, this guy is creating a valuable resource in the attention economy: controversy. Give them a medal and a journalism grant.