The common MO amongst right wingers is they claim that dissidents like Mahmoud Khalil is a “guest” and therefore they believe that he should not have the right to criticize the government.
What is your view on this?
Edit: Mr. Khalil has a Green Card btw, just to clarify.
deleted by creator
First Amendment supposedly applies to all who reside in the USA
Right wingers don’t stop with immigrants. “Love it or leave it” applies to everyone as far as they’re concerned.
Unless a Democrat is in office, in which case everything the government does is the most disastrous, evil, horrible thing to ever exist.
It’s just an excuse. They want to get rid of him because they don’t like his politics and he’s an activist. Whether the state categorizes you as a citizen, resident, tourist, undocumented, etc. should have nothing to do with your right to speak out.
If there is something to criticize, everyone should do so. Criticism is a good thing: you don’t necessarily have to share it, but you can learn from it.
A government that can’t stand up to simple criticism is a weak government.
If we’re talking about the USA specifically, then the answer is yes. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone.
Well, it was yes.
What we’re all seeing now is that the Constitution ultimately depends on our willingness to agree to collectively abide by it.
It was always just a story, but while we all agreed to believe in it, it was a true story.
My interpretation is that visitors don’t have specific rights to criticize a government per-se. However! In most non-authoritarian countries, everyone has the unequivocal rights to criticize a government as long as they are not intending on disobeying other harassment/discrimination laws, regardless of their status. Since visitors are also included in “everyone”, they can criticize a government too
Of course this only applies to non-authoritarian countries. Authoritarian countries don’t have that right even for their citizens, so visitors are not excluded either
(I hate where this train of thought is going but whatever…)
That depends on if we consider Thomas Paine a founding father or a criminal speaker.
Free speech means you can speak freely
Free free speech hasn’t existed in the US for a long, long time.
Sure you can quip jokes, sure you can call names, you can protest a little bit here and there.
But try being a student and protest, it may actually get you killed or deported or just disappeared.
I think that you should follow local norms. If you’re in the US, go for it. If you’re in Saudi Arabia, maybe keep that shit in your head.
Criticism and rebellion are our right, duty, and delight.
Green card holders are permanent. They’re not any form of temporary and are absolutely not guests.
When you are a guest, yes, follow local customs.
Everybody has a right to criticize anything they want.
I don’t have to visit the Sahara to know that it’s hot and dry there, and there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to say it’s too hot and dry for me to want to go there.
Someone else might criticize the Sahara for being too cold and wet. That doesn’t make any sense to me, and I can claim that they don’t know what they are talking about, but they have the right to believe that.
If freedom of speech is granted to all and there is legal precedent and long standing tradition for that case then all should be able to have freedom of speech regardless of status.
I would expand on this to declare that the free speech that has been granted to all is a Good Thing™ and should be a point of pride that we strive for and boldly implement.
Are you asking if humans have the right to free speech? Because yes.
Any “government” that doesn’t recognize that deserves the respect of no human being
Should doesn’t enter. They do have that right, it’s a human right, the right of free expression. Doesn’t depend on nationality or location, only humanity.
