[rayiner]

> You're claiming the UK lacks "freedom of speech" because it doesn't allow people to incite violence online, while saying the USA has free speech, despite it seemingly rejecting visitors for legal political speech.

Free speech means the country must tolerate what citizens say; it does not mean the country can't exercise its discretion over its borders to bar entry to foreigners who say things citizens don't like.

[andor]

Free speech is generally considered a human right that should apply to anyone, not just citizens.

It's the basis of democracy, and a healthy democracy does not reject a visitor just because they criticized its government.

[rayiner]

To the contrary, it's pro-democratic. In a healthy democracy, people should be able to vote to create the kind of society they want. That includes being able to exclude, through their government, outsiders who don't share their values.

[sapphicsnail]

Most people don't want someone hauled off to a blacksite for posting a JD Vance meme

[raw_anon_1111]

Next up, in a society you should make sure that people you want to exclude have to drink from certain water fountains, can’t be in the same pool and go to separate schools…

[scarecrowbob]

Is it not chilling if government can proscribe the things that you say for other people, as if your position is one the government can directly oppose and call illegitimate?

[rayiner]

I suspect those who find it chilling also perceive a weak distinction between citizens and visitors. For people who see that difference as foundational, differing treatment of those two groups is not chilling.

[scarecrowbob]

Well, yes people who believe in "universal human rights" probably are less okay with "highly contingent rights conferred by a government".

[rayiner]

Rights can be inalienable but not universal. These rights are conferred by the government, but arise by virtue of membership in a body politic. For example, the right to vote isn’t universal but the government can’t take it away. Free speech arises out of America’s Anglo history and tradition and was viewed by the founders as a political right that protects democracy. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that this right is inalienable for citizens, but doesn’t extend to visitors who aren’t members of our body politic and aren’t entitled to participate in our democracy anyway.

[scarecrowbob]

The people you're describing found it consistent with liberty to own other humans, so forgive me if I am skeptical.

I understand your point, I just have a different theory of rights. Just because something is logically conistent doesn't mean I agree with the starting premises.

Personally, are any of your beliefs or statements things that could ban you for entry into the US? Because I have quite a few things that I have said on social media which would likely prevent my entry. It certainly doesn't make me feel like a "member of a body politic" when that body treats my beliefs as intrusive and foreign.

[rayiner]

I’m not trying to persuade you about the premises, but only that—as a result of those premises—the slippery slope you fear is longer than you assume. For people who draw fundamental inside/outside distinctions, things that are intolerable for outsiders to say are tolerable for insiders to say.

I view America as a hot cup of coffee, and the outside world as lukewarm day old coffee. I’m not worried about how hot or cold individual molecules inside America are—the average will work out. My concern is about dumping lukewarm coffee from the outside into the cup.

[daveoc64]

That's certainly a stance you can take, but it's not one I'd expect to see from a US administration that's repeatedly (including from the president less than 48 hours ago) got on its high horse to criticise what it perceives as a government crackdown on freedom of speech in European countries.

[hermitcrab]

Yes, the hypocrisy is off the scale. Free speech, as long as it is something I agree with.

[rayiner]

It's only hypocritical if you believe in universal values that apply to citizens and outsiders alike, which Trump's camp does not. There is nothing inconsistent with supporting free speech for Americans in America and British people in the U.K. while also supporting screening visitors to those countries based on their ideologies.

[deeg]

Back in May Rubio was going after foreign nationals that were "censoring" Americans.

[hermitcrab]

But even then you can see that they continually talk about the suppression of 'free speech' when the people talking are white supremicists and neo-Nazis. But I am not aware that there is a single instance of them sticking up for Islamic or other radicals that don't fit their agenda.

[SauciestGNU]

When the US criticizes Europe for free speech and political suppression, you can be sure they're complaining because the criminalization of literal Naziism harms Trump's allies.