State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments

We often accept some limits on speech - such as disallowing threats or blackmail. But on what planet is some person stating that Charlie Kirk "devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric" an endorsement of Kirk's murder?

How is anyone supposed to believe the administration is being at all genuine when it categorizes that sentence as an endorsement of murder and then applies punitive action toward the man who wrote it?

Are we now at the point where (in Soviet Russian style) the government gleefully makes absurd factual claims and administers capricious punishments specifically as a demonstration of the government power to oppress?

The legal theory is that you, as a citizen, have a clear free speech right to say that, but that foreigners outside the U.S. don't have any free speech right at all under the U.S. constitution to say that. (In a related legal doctrine, denying people a visa in retaliation for their specific actions is officially "not a punishment".)

I think this theory is pretty broken, but I also find that there are a lot of things where longstanding legal doctrines give the government humongous amounts of power and discretion, and they often did not just, like, make up the concept just 10 minutes ago. Often it's arguably been the rule for many decades.

The thing that I'm more familiar with in this category is border searches. My mom was surprised to hear that people's devices (including U.S. citizens' devices) were being searched at the border without suspicion, something that would obviously violate the fourth amendment in a regular domestic context. Something my mom didn't know, but I happened to know from having studied and written about this in the past, is that we have legal precedents going back decades that specifically say that that is a power that the government has.

Now, I would like to see a rule that the fourth amendment does apply at the border, but we've been far away from that for years, with important cases in 2004 and 1985 and even longer ago saying that it doesn't. (In this case, it is held not to apply to either citizens or non-citizens in the border search context.)

So, I would encourage people to have a broader sense of historical perspective about the staggering amount of power and discretion that the government has repeatedly been given, and the considerable number of limitations that have been held to apply to various legal rights, while also opposing this and trying to change it.

Edit: In terms of foreigners' political expression, I believe we've had rules in the U.S. at least since the 1920s that foreigners ought to be excluded from moving here, or even from visiting, for some kinds of radical politics. I also find this notion concerning, I just want to point out that it's in some sense a 100-year-old concept rather than like a 1-month-old concept.

Second this and even when these restrictions apply to foreign nationals as visa enforcement it’s still a chilling effect on American citizens.

Yes, and you can come back here and see all the comments that either say its justified in this case. Or, comments will state that the other side did it first.

I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.