[ilikehurdles]

That’s wrong.

Not all rights are natural rights (or human rights).

Citizens have a right to vote. Guests typically do not.

Citizens in some countries have an exclusive right to own land in those countries.

Should a visitor to a country enjoy the right to explicitly espouse opposition to that country without any negative consequence?

I would say no, and I would say the constitutional court of the US will have no problem agreeing with me. Affiliation with a communist or totalitarian party has been legally held up as a disqualification from becoming a US citizen; this is despite US citizens having the right to associate with such parties.

Ergo, citizens and guests do not hold the same rights.

[whatshisface]

>Should a visitor to a country enjoy the right to explicitly espouse opposition to that country without any negative consequence?

What I imagine is the biggest, most obvious crack in this argument, is that "the country" includes people who support every side of most issues, especially the question of how many Palestinians Israel will be allowed to kill before they're made to stop it. Arresting tourists that espouse a particular view represents once force within the US dominating another within the US.

[ilikehurdles]

It’s not a crack in the argument. I literally reference similar fact in the same comment, if you read to the end.

It’s evidence that yes, indeed, citizens and non-citizens do not share the same rights. There is a long history to back this up.

[asacrowflies]

The bill of rights and constitution and the courts interpretation of these is crystal clear and your argument borders on treason and a subversion and "Material support for terrorist organizations (even verbal/written advocacy. "

Which I hope to see prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in coming years. MAGA need to be purged like the communists.

[ilikehurdles]

This is tantamount to you calling for my execution and the death of other people you perceive to be your political opponents, and ironically it’s over my exercise of speech.

It is disgusting what has been allowed to fester on hackernews

[donkeybeer]

I can't believe people this damned stupid exist on HN. How is it calling for your execution? Are you fucked in the head? He's just saying terrorists should be dealt with according to the laws of the USA. Why the fuck are you feeling "being executed"?

And even if it wasn't terrorists its perfectly legal free speech to say "All muslims should be killed", "all maga to be killed". How on earth does it violate anyone's free speech? I can't even begin to understand how someone can be this stupid, this is actual mental illness level of stupidity.

[asacrowflies]

Rules for thee and not for me much?lol

[ilikehurdles]

I think me presenting an argument that basically says that certain noncitizens to the United States face consequences when exercising certain kinds of speech that citizens do not face is substantially different from your rule that I should be executed for making that argument.

[asacrowflies]

You literally used "communist" and other vague "terrorist" language to justify your bullshit as reasonable or sane. And I want that same energy turned back on MAGA . They are literally subverting our nation and more dangerous than any communist . Citizen vs non citizen is irrelevant to the constitution as you have been told repeatedly. If this is how the law is going to play out. Then I want it applied to ALL extremist and terrorists. Period.

[ilikehurdles]

You need to get a grip on reality for your own sake.

I mentioned both terrorist and communist for evidence-based reasons. I am literally a naturalized citizen who had to affirm he was not affiliated with communist parties when applying for citizenship in this country. The rules were literally different for me then, than they are for me now as a citizen.

Other people “pointing out” other arguments is fine - we can disagree, one or both of us can be wrong, etc. Liberalism is built on individual rights.

But you want to label people as extreme in order to kill them. I don’t know what made your heart so corrupted by hate but I hope you find your way out

[chebureki]

I would think the Bill of Rights applies equally to citizens or non-citizens. That includes the First Amendment. That includes the right to freedom of speech and expression of opposition to whatever he or she desires. The freedom of speech is part of the 'truths' that are self-evident. And almost every time, the Congress tried to restrict these rights, they were struck by the courts. This isn't about demolishing the state, as communists would want to do. This isn't about changing the constitutional order, as any totalitarian party would have to do. This is about a right of a person to express his or her opinion without repercussions.

"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282...

[ilikehurdles]

The bill of rights does not apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. There’s a deep history of cases testing most of those amendments on this line, some landing one way, some landing another, and a few “it depends”.

And a district court judge’s rather inappropriate screed sets no legal precedent. It’s old man yells at clouds. It would be relevant to discuss founding documents or Supreme Court opinions.

[chebureki]

I never claimed it set a precedent. But a federal judge in this case claimed "The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction [between citizens and legal non-citizens] and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence."

In our history OR jurisprudence! You seem to claim otherwise, if I am not mistaken. So, it behooves you to provide evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what precedent-setting Supreme Court decision claims that the First Amendment does not apply to non-US citizens?