On another message board (not going to link to it), I’m marginally involved in a conversation about immigration and someone said words to the effect:
If you want to be a citizen of this country (USA) you should have to pass a test - until that point, you shouldn’t enjoy all of the rights and privileges of the constitution…
OK so far - a bit strict perhaps, but understandable at least - but they went on to say (paraphrased):
… freedom of speech would be a significant one - if you’re not a citizen, you don’t get to criticize our government.
I was shocked and astonished at this and replied: Freedom of speech is a basic human right. It is already recognised as such outside of the US constitution, bill of rights, etc - you can’t make people wait until they’re citizens to enjoy the right of free speech - they already have that right regardless.
The reply was: If they want to exercise their free speech they can do it from their country of origin. You can be outside and criticize the US government but if you live in the USA you can move out.
To which I reiterated: You’re still defining a situation in which you would suppress pre-existing basic human rights.
To which the response was: I disagree, I am not stopping them from speaking, just saying they can do it from somewhere else.
And I don’t see it going any further than verbal tennis now.
My reason for starting this thread was mostly that I want someone to reassure me that this business of ‘free speech, as long as you say something nice, or go somewhere else’ - that I find frighteningly awful - isn’t a very popular position, otherwise, I guess we ought to debate it here.
I can see where the other guy is coming from. It’s very rude to be a guest and insult the host. It’s even worse to then complain when you’re thrown out.
I don’t believe in free speech being a basic human right, but I do think you’re right in pointing out his mistake. Of course all “free” speech has some constraints, but generally one of those restraints isn’t as vast as “Nothing bad or you have to be out of the country”. At that point you really can’t call it free speech anymore.
He sounds like an utter moron who probably won’t be swayed by your arguments no matter what you say, but you could try getting to the root of his interesting belief by asking him why non-citizens shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy that right. Does he believe that their criticism will somehow harm the US? Is the US so utterly above reproach that only Americans are allowed to criticise it?
It’s relevant because it’s about the most extreme example of free speech. If you believe that it should be legal, then I applaud your principles and absolutely agree with your logic in this thread. Otherwise, I have to assume that you support some restrictions upon free speech - then the only difference between you and the other guy is where you draw the line (and I can see the arguement from both side).
No it’s irrelevant, because we’re discussing when people do and do not have freedom of speech, not how that right is composed - the US First Amendment defines it in the context of US citizenship - the UN declaration defines it approximately equivalently elsewhere.
Whether this right enables child porn, shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, or the freedom to verbally abuse a pot of raspberry jam, is irrelevant to this discussion.
Historically that was the way it was in this country on many issues. Political speech was oftenchallenged as being treasonous or subversive etc. Sacco and Venzettti, many argue were not executed for killing someone so much as they were their anarchist beliefs and speech. It is obvious to us that free exchange of ideas is more important than making sure our guests observe specific rules of decorum, but if the words become an icitement to overthrow the governemt? Is this OK? I’m just asking.
From a less moral but more practical standpoint, I can see why you would want to restrict an alien’s right to education, medical care or job access. It costs money to grant those rights. But freedom of speech? That stuff is free! What could an alien say that would harm the country in a way that it wouldn’t if it were said by a citizen? What does the country lose when an alien expresses his opinion about anything? It is not as if you are granting him a vote. Whatever he says, is probably being said a million times already by the citizens.
If they are a guest I can see some restricted privileges. While I don’t see freedom of speech as a basic human right, I can see it as a good right for the people to have.
I think the problem is what to do if this right is restricted to citizens only, what is the punishment for violation. If a guest says something that is against the rules set forth, it seems reasonable to give a warning for the first time, let them know that this will not be allowed. For further violations it seems like the host can demand that person leave and that option should always be available. Now if you want to talk about fines and/or jail, I think if it comes to that then yes it is appropriate, but again with the option to just leave - at any time (if he decides to leave on day 10 of his 11 day sentence he is on the next flight out of the US.). If we would like to inflict pain and suffering on that person for the violation, I still think they should get the option of simply leaving, again at any time, even during the punishment. If we want to push this to execution, again with the full ability to simply leave, I think that we should give the person a choice of either having his body shipped back to his country of origin (or choice assuming the country would accept them), or be buried here with full honors of citizenship upon death.
Good point. Seems a ridiculous requirement then, in that case. (I would have no problem in giving the right to asylum seekers, but to me a country should have a fundamental right to only let people in who are going to fit in, emergencies excepted.)
Just differences in definition, then. I would consider a “basic human right” to be that that is inherent, rather than attributed by a overseeing body. I don’t believe free speech is an inherent human right.
Surely the “other guy” in the OP is saying, in effect, once you pass the test (whatever that may be) and become a citizen you are free to criticise the US. Prior to having that privilege conferred, if you don’t like the way the US conducts its affairs don’t become one of them and just criticise from afar.
I can see this point of view, why become a member of a group to immediately begin to criticise its functions.