“The space researcher was allegedly randomly checked on arrival, during which his professional computer and personal telephone were allegedly searched. Similarly, messages about the Trump administration’s treatment of scientists have been found.”

  • sqgl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    1st Amendment protections on freedom of speech apply to everyone in the USA, regardless of citizenship. Frenchman should sue.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That doesn’t de jure apply to non-citizens at the border, never mind de facto.

        • okamiueru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

    • gomp@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There’s no first or fourth amendment rights within 100 miles of the border of the USA. Probably other missing rights too.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

          • shaggyb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

        • comfy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      i didn’t expect to see a monty-python/star-trek response to current events; but i’ll allow it. lol

  • beek@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 days ago

    “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.”

    • gomp@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.”