Apparently, for the US, the right to free speech only applies to US people, not the world.
Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...
Same as with the right not to be spied upon, really. Sad...
That has always been the case with the US "right to privacy". The Snowden leaks have caused a fuss (in the USA) because it's the US Government spying on US citizens in the USA. Us foreigners have always been spied on.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The US goes to war to bring 'democracy' to foreign lands, but at the same time it doesn't think it's appropriate to follow it's own principles with regard to it's treatment of foreigners (and their data) at home.
Not saying right or wrong, just how the system works.
To foreigners and law layman it often seems that the wording of the U.S. constitution means Human Rights but that has often turned out not to be the case and those are more understood as Civil Rights. Personally I have the feeling that there are no Human Rights in the U.S. given what we know about Guantanamo and NSA surveillance but I'd like to hear a more knowledgeable opinion about that.
But, yes, some countries enforce their laws on companies there that deal with anyone. If you're not in the USA or Canada and have a Facebook account, Facebook is bound by Irish Data Protection (i.e. privacy) law. You, as a non-Irish citizen, or resident, talk to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner and get them to enforce your rights. And Austrian person did just that: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html
Additionally in the UK, you are entitled to some forms of free medical care from the NHS, even if you're a non-UK resident just visiting: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/uk-visitors/Pa...
So no, not all systems work like the US system.
And at the border the majority of your rights are suspended anyway.
Isn't this a fairly recent phenomena, and predicated on dubious legal grounds? In any case, this sort of thing can only survive because people accept it (and perhaps because they may be careful not to harass influential people).
The answer is has many faces - until you have entered any country you are not subject to the full jurisdiction there - Snowden was not having full rights in Moscow for the months he spent at the terminal. He was also not having full obligations - in Russia you need to register with the police as a foreigner and generally help them keep track of you when you switch your residence. So even as a US citizen while on the border you are not in the US fully.
The second is that the Supreme Court has balanced the rights and obligations of the government (the right to refuse entry and the duty to protect the country) and has determined that it is greater than the rights given by the fourth amendment.
It seems circumscribed, if that Wikipedia article is correct. Blasphemy laws are one worrying aspect.
On the other hand, I'd rather have even that constitutional guarantee instead of the complete lack of any guaranteed freedom of speech that is the situation in the UK.