I mean.. I dont agree with the Trump administration on nearly anything. But deciding that they dont like what an outsider says and blocking them entrance based on that is not a free speech issue, they're not citizens.
Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.
Note, even if this were true, the entire point of being the free speech party or being a free speech absolutist was that those people supported free speech above and beyond the legal concept of free speech. They explicitly built their free speech crusade against moderation actions on privately owned websites.
"still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter."
So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?
> Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone
It was pointed out how historically un-American this is, and your response is to say we should in fact expand this policy - to be able to kick people out of the country or deny them entry for saying things online that aren't even as dramatic, hateful, or violence-glorifying as the things that this administration's supporters constantly, constantly, constantly say, for example, about victims of police shooting or victims of mass shootings?
Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first.
I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
Both parties have denied Visas for social media posts in the past - in fact that has been going on since it started many years ago. It's only news now for some strange reason. Although, I'm sure it's "different this time(tm)".
I see so many posts on here that only see the world in black and white. It’s either or, never shades of gray.
No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.
During the biden administration I had dozens of people tell me that they were criticizing the biden administration because of their free speech absolutism. Absolutism.
The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist.
"Free speech absolutism" was always applied just as vigorously - more so even! - to people "inciting violence" to a greater degree than in this example (they defended much more explicit glorification of violence and hatred than in this example, and even outright inciting of violence, as you call it, which this is obviously not an example of).
Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.