2) Isn't anything that results in a "chilling effect" tantamount to restriction?
I expect this will have a chilling effect abroad, among people who travel to the US, more than within the US.
1) Sure, if you're a US Citizen, I don't think non-resident, non-citizens outside of the United States are entitled to any protections
2) That would be my opinion. Maybe a frequent¹ conference speaker¹ with outspoken political views² from a European country could mount a challenge that requiring social media profiles in order to enter the country amounts to a chilling effect and consequent prior restraint on speech in the United States
¹ - The conditions under which a person qualifies for the visa waiver program are complicated
² - I imagine a political dissident or someone equally outspoken who has used anonymous social media profiles to protect their livelihood would have the strongest case
That's the legal rationale for a lot of 'bad behavior' such as PRISM -- they can intercept undersea cable traffic to legally spy on foreigners, as foreigners lack constitutional rights. Nothing new there.
So-called unlawful enemy combatants have limited rights and the Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of limitations on the rights of US citizens apprehended in a theater of war, but even foreign citizens have a constitutional right to habeas corpus when apprehended by the government on foreign soil (Boumediene v. Bush).
Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it?
The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words.
The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people."
The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.
Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.
Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.
Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.
Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.
Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.
If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.
This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).
> "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."
So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work.
Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation.
If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith.
For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
The one thing I appreciated about HN is the signal to noise ratio. Plenty of comments are actually insightful, but the one in question is just noise.
But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy.
I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers.
But yeah, that's probably my bad.
> palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human
I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.
If you want to cherry pick certain parts of the second amendment - I can do that too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Law evolves along with technical progress and 2nd amendment is not exception.
Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.
You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/constant-evolution-first-...
But not to the point of banning speech.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1044/communications...
"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."
A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.
Who cares about an M16 at that point.
You're arguing something that simply isn't so.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor - if you think when they wrote the second amendment they didn't think "gee, maybe guns will shoot faster someday" then I don't know what to tell you.
...and in any case, this is not a citizen/non-citizen issue, as GP claims - lawful permanent residents have the same 2nd amendment rights as citizens.
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.