[smogcutter]

You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).

It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.

[selimthegrim]

It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone

[TeaBrain]

The are FCC rules concerning foreign ownership of broadcast channels, which could be considered an exception to this.

[ericjmorey]

What's written and what's enforced often don't align.

[Dalewyn]

Obligatory IANAL.

The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]

That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

[hn_acker]

> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]

No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.

[Dalewyn]

If you read the links I cited, you would have known that SCOTUS ruled that the full authority of the Constitution only applies as far as incorporated US territories and only to US nationals and citizens (colloquially "Americans").

Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.

You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.

Obligatory IANAL.

[hn_acker]

The first section you cited [1] interprets "People of the United States" to mean "nationals and citizens". I don't stop being a citizen when I leave US borders. I previously read the first section but neglected to read the second section, and I have decided to mentally autocorrect "People of the United States" to "United States citizens and nationals who are within US borders".

Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.

The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:

> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.

Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.

Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...