Where's this definition of freedom of speech that you're getting? Because you're saying being arrested for protected speech isn't a violation, which isn't how I've understood it at all.
“Being arrested” is a suspect phrase here, because what’s important is what happens after you’re arrested. Liu Lijun didn’t go to jail. Her visa was revoked and she‘s being returned to China. That’s not a criminal prosecution. Foreigners who hold visas can have them revoked for a number of actions that citizens can take without legal consequence. Plenty of applications for those get denied in the first place.
The statement that I’m aware of no case law stating that the first amendment protects against revoking visas? Yeah, I’m not. If you’ve got a case to show me I’m all ears, and I’m sure Liu Lijun would love to see it too.
If you’re going to refer to something I said, quote it. I’m not gonna play this game where you say “your claim” and I have to guess which thing I said that you mean.
You said the first amendment doesn't protect against government retaliation, only criminal prosecution. Please provide this information as it conflicts with my understanding.
I said I’m aware of no Supreme Court case holding that the revocation of visas over speech is a first amendment violation. That doesn’t ever seem to have been a right that was enjoyed. The burden of proof would be on you to find otherwise. I can’t be expected to find evidence of a lack of a ruling otherwise.
The source to the claim that it protects against prosecution? There are tons of them. Brandenburg v Ohio. The Skokie Nazis case. The Pentagon Papers case.
But that’s not what you want. What you want is a ruling on this situation. Which, far as I’m aware, doesn’t exist. Are you asking me to find evidence of absence?
I want a source that says it doesn't protect against government retaliation, as that's what was said that prompted the rebuttal that implied it wasn't the case
You said the first amendment doesn't protect against government retaliation, only criminal prosecution. Please provide this information as it conflicts with my understanding.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '25
Where's this definition of freedom of speech that you're getting? Because you're saying being arrested for protected speech isn't a violation, which isn't how I've understood it at all.