You can point out that the constitution is for Americans only etc. etc.
The thing is, that the right to free speech, as defended by court cases and by precedence, is about the market place of ideas being functional, and allowing society to figure out what it considers “true”.
This is the spirit of the clause, and the purpose behind the freedoms Americans enjoy and used to uphold.
The reading that it applies “only to American citizens, and visitors on US soil”, is an after the fact reinterpretation to win arguments online.
Free speech in America has always been about the government not being able to decide what can and can’t be said, especially when it comes down to deciding which nations can and can’t be spoken about.
Your argument, can only be built on the ruins of the American free speech experiment. Because it accepts the death of the spirit of the idea, the a marketplace of ideas as a way to address the unknowns of reality, with a centralized, and enforced way of safe topics.
For what its worth, you only reach this level of banana republic, after your information and idea markets are compromised or overwhelmed.
I’m simply pointing out that your argument on procedural merits, takes the spirit of the law to the back of the shed, and shoots it.
You can point out that the constitution is for Americans only etc. etc.
The thing is, that the right to free speech, as defended by court cases and by precedence, is about the market place of ideas being functional, and allowing society to figure out what it considers “true”.
This is the spirit of the clause, and the purpose behind the freedoms Americans enjoy and used to uphold.
The reading that it applies “only to American citizens, and visitors on US soil”, is an after the fact reinterpretation to win arguments online.
Free speech in America has always been about the government not being able to decide what can and can’t be said, especially when it comes down to deciding which nations can and can’t be spoken about.
Your argument, can only be built on the ruins of the American free speech experiment. Because it accepts the death of the spirit of the idea, the a marketplace of ideas as a way to address the unknowns of reality, with a centralized, and enforced way of safe topics.
For what its worth, you only reach this level of banana republic, after your information and idea markets are compromised or overwhelmed.
I’m simply pointing out that your argument on procedural merits, takes the spirit of the law to the back of the shed, and shoots it.