Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> […] countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?

Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").






> AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US

Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.

It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.

In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.


> but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…

IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat).

* https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

> Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights.

* https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: