Comment by WarOnPrivacy
2 days ago
Restating:
> It doesn't seem all that surprising that he
> got denied entry. [because he was]
1> an activist
2> taking part in university protests
3> foreign
In your mind: Why do these qualifications move US Gov behavior - from the unacceptable column into the unsurprising column?
The protesting and activism are the same. I think foreign students/citizens should refrain from doing either of these, as they are in the country for a specific reason (to study), and not to turn its government. You'll probably get away with it when you do it at a small scale, but as things get out of hand, you are unlikely to go unnoticed - as person in the topic apparently did.
There are no such considerations in the US Constitution.
As an American, I have a right to hear the speech of foreign students and citizens. The government does not have the power to prevent me from hearing what they have to say. Small or large scale does not matter.
Stanley v Georgia: "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas... This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is fundamental to our free society."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/557/
Does your right to hear anyone's speach mean that any person you want to hear and is able to reach the US has to be allowed to remain in the country?
Does this mean physically hearing this person? Because if not, then the blog and the socials will continue to be there.
6 replies →