1st Amendment protections on freedom of speech apply to everyone in the USA, regardless of citizenship. Frenchman should sue.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
220 points (98.2% liked)
Privacy
36021 readers
10 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That doesn’t de jure apply to non-citizens at the border, never mind de facto.
Rights don't apply to non-citizens? You sure?
Relevant section on Wikipedia:
The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen.[83] On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen.[84] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear.[85] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Regarding the protections against illegal searches, I think all bets are off, even for US citizens.
Visitors to the US have been asked if they were members of the communist party since forever though?
IDK if those who replied "yes" would be sent back, but I do remember reading about Chinese communist party members being denied entry to the US.
I don't see much difference between this and that as far as the 1st amendment is concerned... aren't you idealizing the 1st amendment (and/or how seriously the US takes it)?
PS: let me make clear that I'm not trying to defend the indefensible behaviour of the Trump administration in any way
There’s no first or fourth amendment rights within 100 miles of the border of the USA. Probably other missing rights too.
That's not true, because the Constitution applies to the whole place. Americans and non-citizens freely exercise those rights in those areas daily.
If any agent of the government tells you otherwise, you must educate them and enforce the free exercise of your own rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and seizures within 100 miles (160 km) of the border into the interior of the United States.[5] The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles (160 km) of the border of the United States
This practice exists, but is in violation of guaranteed constitutional rights. The rights still exist and must be respected. The United States' failure to do so does not absolve the responsibility, nor does it negate the reality of the rights in question. The laws and practices enabling this situation are unconstitutional and thus illegitimate.
As for what can be done about it, the responsibility of the average person is to be LOUD about it. Make them pay attention and do not shut up until they do.
If any agent of the government tells you otherwise, you must educate them and enforce the free exercise of your own rights.
How exactly does one enforce the free exercise of their rights?
Remember that agents of the government are often armed and generally don't like being told what to do.
The people are armed as well.
Some people are, yes, but compare what happens when law enforcement agents use their arms, and what happens when regular people use their arms.
A critical part of the state is the monopoly on legitimate violence.
The important judges are trumps pals.
I was under the understanding that when in customs TSA overrides an American Citizens constitutional rights...
Basically, you don't have a 1st ammendment right as an American Citizen.
Nope, that is not correct. The rights remain in place and may be exercised at will.
Thanks for the correction
Clown country thought police.
i didn't expect to see a monty-python/star-trek response to current events; but i'll allow it. lol
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
He committed treason last term, but got away with it thanks to servile Republicans.
And Garland
Garland more than republicans because Garland was supposed to have a soul
You must have an outdated version. The current version is “We announce that there must be no criticism of the President, and that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong. Anything else is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Time to stay away from the USA.
Has been for a few decades, but now more than ever.
Calgon, take me away...
please!
This above all
I heard from a Redditor that his tweets were luring US scientists to EU and his visit was a recruitment drive. One USAmerican already took up the offer.
I imagine US does not want to identify him because although we could verify the above in his tweets, it would be advertising the lure for US scientists to defect.
And the French guy probably does not want to identify himself because je wants to make the US government look as bad as possible.
Not random, not as bad as the headline sounds but not worthy of banning anyhow.
Are the checks really random? If not, what would trigger one?