That’s what he’s saying, yes. I’m saying it’s not a privilege conferred by citizenship at all - the pre-citizen already has it as a right.
Looks to me like you’re absolutely right. But your posts to him haven’t yet, as far as I can tell, explained from whence this right derives (Eleanor Roosevelt).
I linked to the UNUDHR in my very first response to the guy.
Oh. Well be patient, I suppose.
BTW, I think the child porn vs freedom of speech debate thread might be interesting - I only have ‘gut feelings’ on this at the moment, I’d like to see if the issue can actually be hammered down precisely.
Feel free to start one… if not I’ll start one some time in the next 24 hours.
Although I know my mind on the matter, I don’t have anything substantive, so I’ll leave it to your discretion…
The OP is talking about critisism not insults.
There are many many non citizens living quite legally in the US. They pay taxes the same as you and are subject to the sames laws and regulations that govern every day living. Why shouldn’t they have the same right to voice their opinion of how things should be done? There is nothing wrong about criticising the state or the leaders of that state. Everyone living in the state should have that freedom even if they are not full citizens. They are adding to the wealth and strength’s of the US are they not?
I’m not sure it makes a whole lot of difference - aren’t non-violent/threatening verbal insults also pretty much permitted under freedom of speech rights?
Yep, I agree. Unless you are breaking a law regarding speech then it should be all good, in the sense that it should be allowed but obviously open to people opposing the statements with their own POV.
I was only pointing out that criticism of the government was brought up in the OP not insulting remarks.
Isn’t there already something like this in place for American citizens? I remember something about “free speech zones” where you’re allowed to exercise your first amendment rights without bothering anyone?
By the by, how does voting work for non-US citizens in the States.
Our rules are below. Note: The Dail is our Parliament and all non Irish citizens mentioned have to be residents of Ireland
* Irish citizens may vote at every election and referendum;
* British citizens may vote at Dáil elections, European elections and local elections;
* Other European Union (EU) citizens may vote at European and local elections
* Non-EU citizens may vote at local elections only.The First Amendment does not define it in the context of citizenship.
It’s in the context of what Congress can make laws about. Citizens (as “the people”) are only mentioned in the last part (on the right of assembly and the right to petition). Given that citizens are not mentioned in the part about freedom of speech, I can’t see how you could make any argument that aliens do not have freedom of speech under that amendment.
Generally, they don’t get to vote in federal, state or local elections. I believe that there are a very fex\w places where they can vote in local elections, but I don’t know of any cases. I certainly cannot vote in state, county, city or school district elections where I live.
Sorry, I’m going to pile on against the basic underlying premise of the OP.
Human beings do not have any inherent “right” to freedom of expression.
We perhaps can agree that good governing practices allow for freedom of expression, though frankly I’m not sure I would assert that all governments in all parts of the world, in every case, should allow it. I, for one, am wary of telling the People’s Republic of China how to govern 1.3 billion people. But I do believe that my country is better off allowing all people to freely express themselves.
This, however, is not the same as saying that “Freedom of speech is a basic human right.”
And while the two participants in the discussion were quick to drop it in apparent agreement, the point remains that, if you declare that you are offering freedom of expression, then you impose limits on that freedom, you are not any morally different than someone else who offers the freedom, but puts more severe limits on it. You’ve simply drawn the line differently. Which is all that the person who asserts that non-citizens should be more limited is doing. And while I may disagree with his opinion, one must point out that being a citizen does bring with it certain advantages already. I think you can make a very cogent case that everyone should have the right to vote in the case of decisions that affect them substantially. So resident aliens perhaps should be allowed to vote as a right in elections here, by such thinking.
I doubt the opinion expressed by the antagonist mentioned in the OP is popular here, but I’d bet out on the street, you’d get a surprisingly large number of people to agree with it. Which, in a way, shows the danger of allowing democracy to run free.
It might be impolite for a non-citizen to criticise the US when in the US, but illegal? Get outta here.
As a naturalized American citizen, may I chime in? Mangetout, here’s some information you might want to pass on to this person.
First of all, you do have to become a test to become a US citizen. You also have to pay a fee and go through several months of bureaucratic hassle. As part of the requirements, you are required to demonstrate that you can read, write, and speak English.
Legal residents of the US also don’t have all the same rights and requirements as US citizens. Most notably, non-citizens aren’t allowed to vote. I think you also have to be a citizen to be eligible for jury duty. There are also some government agencies which won’t hire non-citizens, even if they’re in the process of becoming citizens (I found that one out the hard way).
As for restricting free speech, my brother and I came here when we were a baby and a toddler, respectively. Our education has been entirely American. You can’t become a US citizen until you’re 18, and returning to England was impractical. Does this person sincerely believe that it’s appropriate to deny people who had no choice in their immigration and who know only one goverrment the right to criticize that government? Should that person have no political opinions at all, or limit herself to only positive ones?
I suggest that perhaps that person isn’t thinking things through is unaware of the facts or hasn’t thought things through. You already have to pass a test to become a US citizen and non-citizens do enjoy fewer rights and privileges than citizens. As for leaving the country in order to criticize it, please tell him I’ll be happy to do so if he’ll buy me a round-trip ticket to England. Mangetout, I believe I owe you a beer. 
Giles, as far as I know, non-citizens can’t vote in any elections. One is either eligible to vote or one isn’t.
I guess it depends on how you define “basic”, no? Does basic = inherent? I agree with you that freedom of expression isn’t inherent, but then I don’t think there are any rights that are “inherent”. I think that we as a society mutually agree which rights we are going to assign to ourselves and charge our government with protecting.
But if we define basic as “fundamental”, or “one of the first that must be established”, then I would agree that it is “basic”. I don’t see anything wrong with saying: Freedom of expression is one of the rights which form the foundation of a free society. Or: A society isn’t free if it does not grant its citizens freedom of expression.
Now, as to whether a society can be considered free if it grants freedom of expression only to its citizens… I don’t know. I guess that depends on whether you consider non-citizens to be part of your society. I do. Others may not.
It’s no accident that Freedom of Speech is listed in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution, and not the 10th.
First of all, you do have to pass a test to become a citizen.
I wonder which other rights those in favor of limiting free speech would like to take from non-citizens. The right to bear arms? Protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Self-incrimination? Religion?
Not all residents ever want to become citizens. My grad advisor was Canadian, and he stayed a Candian citizen until the day he died. I think the US had a net gain from him living here. Also, how would you enforce it? Would you force non-citizens to wear something on their outer clothes? Would you kick out a tourist making a crack about Bush when reading the newspaper, or would you only get those demonstrating, or those writing critical op-ed pieces?
And what possible benefit would the US get from limiting free discussion? Do the proponents of this idea think that non-citizens don’t have good ideas? Would those who support Republicans in principle today have to shut up if a Democrat took the White House?
The reason free speech is in the Constitution is not as a signing bonus for citizenship, but because freedom of expression makes our society stronger. Anyone against it doesn’t quite understand what America is all about.