US could ask foreign tourists for five-year social media history before entry

Post by cess11 » Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 7:26 PM UTC

hermitcrab wrote: post #223

cess11 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'You're claiming the UK lacks "freedom of speech" because it doesn't allow people to incite violence online, while saying the USA has free speech, despite it seemingly rejecting visitors for legal political speech.' Voicing support for the group Palestine Action has been met with quite harsh responses in the UK, even though that group is arguably non-violent in that its criminal actions are directed towards property…

>Voicing support for the group Palestine Action has been met with quite harsh responses in the UK, even though that group is arguably non-violent That was my opinion. However one of them was alleged at a recent trial to have hit and injured a policewoman with a sledgehammer.

Post by rayiner » Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 7:28 PM UTC

hermitcrab wrote: post #225

daveoc64 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly a stance you can take, but it's not one I'd expect to see from a US administration that's repeatedly (including from the president less than 48 hours ago) got on its high horse to criticise what it perceives as a government crackdown on freedom of speech in European countries.

Yes, the hypocrisy is off the scale. Free speech, as long as it is something I agree with.

Post by fluidcruft » Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 7:36 PM UTC

tavavex wrote: post #209

fluidcruft wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it was confusing. I my circles the US one is known as "BP" and Canadian is "CBP". It makes more sense that they were talking about the Mexican border in retrospect given some other cues.

You must be misremembering, or maybe the your social circle mixed up the two by accident, which then became established. The Canadian border agency is never called CBP, because the actual name of the agency is CBSA. CBP always refers to the US agency.

Post by tastyface » Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 7:48 PM UTC

mvdtnz wrote: post #195

throw310822 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perpetrate unlawful anti-Semitic harassment Interesting that threats to national security and "antisemitism" are put on an equal footing and clearly above everything else; also makes me wonder what is "unlawful antisemitic harassment"- the US considers every speech lawful as far as I understand. Or, if some speech is indeed unlawful, is it going to matter only if that speech is against Jews or Israel?

[flagged]

Post by sapphicsnail » Wed, Dec 10, 2025, 8:02 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #230

andor wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is generally considered a human right that should apply to anyone, not just citizens. It's the basis of democracy, and a healthy democracy does not reject a visitor just because they criticized its government.

To the contrary, it's pro-democratic. In a healthy democracy, people should be able to vote to create the kind of society they want. That includes being able to exclude, through their government, outsiders who don't share their values.