Comment by kreetx
2 days ago
He can still express his opinion and he can still protest.
In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
2 days ago
He can still express his opinion and he can still protest.
In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
Reductio ad absurdum: corporal punishment for people who say things the government dislikes doesn't violate their freedom of speech. Sure, they might get beaten for it, but they can still express their opinion and they can still protest!
Yes, my opinion is that there should be no legal consequences for speech. And again, that is the US Secretary of State's opinion too — just only for US nationals traveling to foreign countries, not vice versa.
> In your opinion, should anyone be able to travel to the US to protest? Would you set an upper limit to this process, or should any amount be allowed?
The government shall not take action in response to his constitutionally protected rights because the laws to authorize that action shall not exist.
So no upper limit: any amount of foreigners should be allowed in at any amount?
(Corporal punishment is when it's physical pain. I don't think a sore bum from an airplane seat counts.)
They are not limiting foreigners (well, they are, but that's a separate issue). They are deporting people specifically in order to censor speech the government dislikes, irrespective of how many people are visiting the country.
I understand what corporal punishment is. My point is that the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of "free speech" does not preclude it.
The government can prevent people from entering the country for any number of reasons. The content of their speech is not one of them.