[ProfChronos]

I find it really problematic: when you fill the US borders paperwork, you are supposed to give objective admin/personal details while on social media you are supposed to speak up your mind. Where do you place the limit between somebody that publicly criticizes the US foreign policy and somebody that can be a threat? How are they going to handle people who posted something like "The US knew about the 9/11 attacks"?

[ihsw]

There is already precedent for criminalizing dissent -- Turkey, for example, considers online criticism of Turkey as equivalent to damaging national security by spreading propaganda with the intent to provoke attacks towards the Turkish government.

It would be fair to assume the US would be open to such means to improve security.

[twoodfin]

No, it wouldn't. The US has a long, deep tradition of not criminalizing dissenting views. Exceptions like the Alien & Sedition acts or the "Red Scare" are remarkable because they're so counter to that tradition.

[nitrogen]

Subtle manipulation is worse than overt criminalization.

[chimeracoder]

> There is already precedent for criminalizing dissent -- Turkey, for example,

No need to reach so far. New York just made it illegal to advocate boycotting Israel[0].

[0] http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/ny_gov_cuomo_signing_unconst...

[vageli]

From the article you cited, it appears that the law in question prohibits investment by the State of New York, not by individuals:

> WHEREAS, the State of New York will not permit its own investment activity to further the BDS campaign in any way, shape or form, whether directly or indirectly;

Is there more to it than what the article mentions?

[loceng]

In reality they likely already know this information about you, at least some level of a government agency does, and simply want a way to confront people about it. However when you cross the border I don't think most people are looking for a conversation on whatever beliefs they currently hold or may have held in the past.