Does not lie on the spectrum.
How would one redefine either of the extremal points (or, more concisely, the notion of speech itself) so that it does?
It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.
> If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
And indeed, many of those that claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now cheering on books burnings and deporting citizens without due process. They simply brandished "free speech" as a defense everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical or legal ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a mean to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.
So.. where's the real boundary? Fraud? CSAM? Other media deemed obscene? FOSTA/SESTA related matters? Death threats? Actions adjacent to death threats, like posting a picture of someone's face and address with a target photoshopped on them? Overt advocacy of violence against the state?
(people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here)
Free speech has never been conceived as giving you a right to commit fraud, extortion, bribery, criminal conspiracy, blackmail, treason, leaking classified information... the list is long. If you're going to commit a crime, and part of the crime is implemented as communication, "free speech" is not a defense. Never has been. If you think otherwise, your understanding of what "free speech" means in the US is faulty.
> people nearly always come back with some sort of "that's not actually speech" weird categorization defence here
Grand parent neatly predicted your response, you are trying to categorize every kind of illegal speech forms as something else than speech. Either you can say whatever you want or you can't. There's no absolutism with restrictions.
Second: There's no "free speech absolutism". Not only does speech not erase other crimes, there are also certain restrictions on free speech as speech. Imminent incitement to violence is one of them.
And as an aside, deporting people (back to their home countries) over their ideology is appropriate. The administration was recently elected to do just that. Deportations are legal, and the US public voted for them. The mandate is clear.
Republicans have to stop with this "mandate" argument. Being elected doesn't make the president all-powerful, they still have to abide by the law.
The way this administration is doing their deportations is illegal, that's all I'm saying, and at this point it is not an opinion.
As in - they don't bother to try to reconcile different thoughts and ideas into a coherent chain. There's no consideration for how the words said in this sentence might impact the words said just a sentence or two before.
It's just smushed together into canvas of "vaguely decent sounding gibberish". Each sentence by itself is somewhat coherent, but when you take the entire paragraph... it lacks internal consistency.
Deportation does require some process, but you're not being charged with a crime, you're being returned to freedom in your own country. If a democratically elected government demonstrates that you are not a citizen, and judges that the country would be better off without you in it, and further gained its mandate from the position that it would deport you, I'd be hard pressed to find a legal reason why this policy should be prevented. The first amendment protects you from prosecution, not deportation. We'll see if the supreme court agrees.
The important thing in rule of law is that it should be possible to comply. If visa holders were told that not engaging in political speech or holding certain views in public was a condition of their visa, then it's somewhat defensible.
What are the speech laws that apply here?
Or are you arguing that visas are pure whimsy? That they're awarded based on whether elected officials like you or not?
Also, if the US government is doing deportations *for speech*, that's definitely 100% a free speech issue.
Let's not forget that people being sent to El Salvador who are not from there are not being deported, they're very definitely being imprisoned.
You are at any point free to get on a plane home.
>Let's not forget that people being sent to El Salvador
Sure, but they aren't being rendered to El Salvador for their speech, which is what this particular conversation is about.
Why do you think this matters? Further, why do you think this isn't a punishment (often of greater impact than a fine? Nothing like paying for 3/4 of a top tier ivy diploma only to be sent home a few semesters before graduating - nifty little 100k fine right there...)
These are clear punishments applied by the admin towards a group of people making specific speech they don't like.
You are ok with that.
Ipso facto - you are not pro free speech.
I... don't really know why you're bothering to argue that you are.
In which case that speech should be restricted by removing them, without due process and without recourse?
Am I understanding you correctly?
Code for - things you don't like. Check.
> No one is putting you in prison, you're being sent home.
We are breaking a valid grant of access, without recourse.
My take here is that you're basically in favor of recent attempts to try to revoke visas and deport students who are saying "heinous shit" (you know, heinous, terrible things like: "Maybe the people in Gaza are actually people" and "Maybe Israel should stop killing journalists and aide organization members trying to help those people" - absolute, utter batshit speech apparently. According to you)
But "being sent home" is a bit light. An alternative take might be "I paid 100k so far for this diploma, and you're sending me home the year before I graduate."
Or "I'm literally living with my (US citizens) family in student housing at this university, and you're deporting me now".
And... while I agree visa holders can and should probably have some clear restrictions and requirements...
I think your take is pretty fucking far away from "speech should be unrestricted".
Your stance is not coherent. This is an admin restricting speech of people they think are vulnerable, by imposing clear punishment to coerce silence. Why does that not irritate you if you think speech should be unrestricted?
Are you unable to comprehend how those are related?
Do you not care?
Are you convinced these people are saying things "heinous" enough that suddenly you don't actually want free speech at all?
Basically - help me understand how your reconcile those views internally, because they don't paint a clear picture as you've expressed them here.
>Code for - things you don't like. Check.
Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?
These people aren't illegal immigrants - we're talking about revoking the visas for people here legally under visa programs.
So go answer the question (or keep desperately refusing to...):
Why should a visa holder be targeted and removed for making use of their free speech? How does that reconcile in your head with "I'm all for free speech".
---
> Do you think that saying things that I don't like should de facto grant you citizenship?
This is... gently put - A stupid fucking response. I'm saying that a visa holder shouldn't be removed or otherwise punished for making speech. I think speech shouldn't really impact their visa outside of some clear and sane limits (ex - if they advocate violently overthrowing the US government... sure, lets talk about that visa).
They are here legally with legal visa - why do you confidently proclaim that you are for free speech if you believe that their speech should result in revoked visas?
That's not free speech. That's curtailed speech. AKA - you are not pro free speech.
You seem to think that being sent to your own country is a punishment. I do not. This is going to be a sticking point if you are trying to convince me of something.
Would the visa otherwise be valid?
--
I'm not trying to convince you of fuck all - I am stating that you are not pro free speech. You can tell yourself whatever you'd like...
Are they really? It feels like fascist propaganda never spread so fast and so far than with social media. X is infested with neo-nazis casually discussing the jewish question or fantasizing about a coming race war on the front page. Fox News is a well-oiled oligarch-funded lie machine that never stops spinning narratives in service of power.
To me, that such a large portion of the country is gleefully cheering on ICE parting sick children from their parents [1] is proof enough of the absolute failure of our systems of information and free speech laws in addessing the rising issue of right-wing populism.
Is this the one where books get pulled from school libraries if they mention the existence of gay people?
(as I argue lower down, the US has a whole bunch of restrictions on speech that it avoids dealing with by saying "not speech" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44029515 )
croes•8mo ago
The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.
ycombinete•8mo ago
pjc50•8mo ago
ben_w•8mo ago
But the point is still valid.