I’d tell ‘em to go fuck themselves. I’m sure it’s an exaggeration? What about people who don’t use social media? Or people like me who’d simply refuse to?

this forum is social media.

So? ... Oh I meat people who refuse to provide usernames

this forum is social media. — ernestm

That’s so funny. Is that elitism?

Lol the US has never given a shit about privacy, as a certain set of Snowden leaks will tell anyone. And yes, if you refuse to give them passwords they can simply refuse you entry into the country.

[. Guess I won’t be visiting the US then. What if tell them I don’t have an online presence? Would I have to open an account somewhere and then wait for 5 years?

Sounds like the dumbest thing ever. I guess if nothing can be provided then my mother and grandmother will be denied entry to the US.

Is that elitism? — Brett

I don't know, Brett, i grew up thinking the Usenet was social media, and was excited to have even that, because when I was a teenager, the highlight of the year was to get three sentences into Punch Magazine.

Free speech is a translation of what you have been told. I'd b more worried about free think. People don't change, just the way they are grazed.

Actually, this is more about freedom of movement than speech.

Actually, this is more about freedom of movement than speech. — Brett

What we have now, Brett, is INS computers scanning the social media accounts in the last five years for the word 'Trump', for all the 350,000 people that want to enter the USA for a vacation each week, and denying their entry if they find anything bad said about him.

That is the end of free speech as we know it.

Actually, this is more about freedom of movement than speech — Brett

It's taking away a freedom of movement based on speech. IN that sense it would, if it is true, go againt the principles of the US, if not the law. These are not citizens, so they are particularly protected before they visit. They home countries provide or do not provide the right to free speech. But if people are being forced to reveal their correspondence (more or less) and being denied entrance for opinions - rahter than say, terrorist activity or encouraging terorrist activity- then it is offensive. And it would go against basic ideas of both rights to privacy and rights to free speech. Legal or not, and I have no idea if it is, it would go against the spirit of the constitution and democracy, etc

I meant 'not particularly protected'

I may not have been clear enough in my post.

I’m not saying that it isn’t acting against free speech, I was just being technical I guess. What I meant was those people can still say what they like on social media but they will pay the price with restrictions on entry to the USA, so it’s freedom of movement that’s the price.

The price is not being allowed to enter the US. Some may not consider that any price at all.

"Nearly a year after the plan was first mooted, most visa applicants, including tourists, headed to the United States will have to provide usernames of social media accounts that they have used during the past five years."

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/revised-us-visa-forms-to-ask-most-applicants-to-furnish-5-year-social-media-history/articleshow/69616296.cms

How much can the USA continue to criticize other nations for not protecting privacy and free speech? How much can we be assured of privacy and free speech ourselves? — ernestm

One of the first things you got to realize about the powers that be in the United States is that they have a "do as I say,not as I do" policy. For example, you can easily sue a company or person who may have harmed you (of course provided they have the money and can be find liable for the harm they have done to you), however if is the US government that has done this it is a whole other can of worms to try and do anything about it. Also if a corporation (or wealthy individual) has enough lawyers, accountants, spin doctors, etc. they can more or less make things just as difficult as if they where the US government itself.

On the other hand if one of the few individuals wealth enough to travel to other countries as you feel like it, it might be partly expected that any (or perhaps even every) country you enter will require them to have to jump through certain amount of hoops before you can even put one foot on their soil. Whether any country is justified in what they expect someone to have to do to in order to enter their country is debatable, but after 9/11 it is almost common sense that people coming from one country and going into another such as the United States will often have to go through a screening process that is not different from a background check for a job, entering the military, and/or for handling confidential and/or classified information. This might seem a bit excessive however the US doesn't expect the average Joe Blow (ie one of the working poor, someone from the lower middle class, or from a lower social status) from either the third world or the developed world to come here on a 3 or 4 day vacation; unless perhaps they are willing to spend a ton of time and resources on such a trip.

Another way to look at it is that I use to ride to work with someone who immigrated from Jamaica and in comparing what the US was like to where he use to live he would say that in the US "nothing is a game", and someone (such as himself) didn't do what was expected of him from the government agencies that where allowing him to stay here, they could (and were more than willing to) turn his life upside down if they felt that he was being laid back/not doing enough and such behavior made things more difficult for them to do their job.

I'm confused as to why a non-resident has standing to object to the entry requirements of a foreign sovereign. Can I demand entry into the movie theater for $5 if I think the $12 they're asking is too onerous?

In any event, it seems fairly reasonable for an application to ask for the applicant's name, which would include a request for whatever aliases the person uses. In today's world, those aliases include user names. They've not asked for passwords. The objection, as far as I can see, is that many have created online presences and wish to remain anonymous, but you might understand why a nation that has the right to decide whether to allow you in may want to know who you are and not allow you to remain anonymous.

The price is not being allowed to enter the US. — Brett

If it has a price, it's not free. :joke:

There's no way for them to know whether you use social media or whether you're listing any particular names you've used. If they could know that they wouldn't need to ask you; they'd already know the answer.

This is likely to be akin to the "Are you a drug trafficker?" "Are you a terrorist?" etc. questions on the customs form. I guess if you are and you're dumb enough to answer "Yes" then it's worth finding that out.

There's no way for them to know whether you use social media or whether you're listing any particular names you've used. If they could know that they wouldn't need to ask you; they'd already know the answer. — Terrapin Station

They can ask for your details and if you don't give it, then they can reject you. Which means you would have to create some kind of subterfuge, second accounts and keep them active and have others which you do not give them. Which is a lot of work.

This is likely to be akin to the "Are you a drug trafficker?" "Are you a terrorist?" etc. questions on the customs form. I guess if you are and you're dumb enough to answer "Yes" then it's worth finding that out. — Terrapin Station

Hence it is not at all like this in any way. Right now it is optional, though many may not realize they really can refuse. Visa application processes are complicated. I htink it is a good idea to react now before it is mandatory. And before other countries begin doing the same kind of investigations.
People are getting more and more used to companies, and foremost social media companies, and governments having access to all sorts of private information.

They can ask for your details and if you don't give it, then they can reject you — Coben

Sure, but then this would just amount to, "You're going to have a Visa problem if you don't have a social media account or two that you can reveal." Which is a bit different than what the objections to this are about. Of course, governments would have to be idiots to not realize that that's what this would amount to in that case.

I'm confused as to why a non-resident has standing to object to the entry requirements of a foreign sovereign. — Hanover

The problem with the sovereign nation argument is that the USA itself rebelled against a sovereign nation. The USA states that it was justified to do so, because the British had violated the natural rights of its citizens here. As such, by not extending natural rights to those who visit the country undermines its government's authority to rule, as well as its moral authority to judge the actions of other nations.

In a real quandary here. I'm planning on visiting the US. Should I tell them my Google+ handle is ledzkiltrumpwidfyre? Or should I just leave that one out? :chin:

It is an annoyance and hypocritical, but I don't see a problem here that could affect anyone with a cunning index higher than, say, an amoeba.

The problem with the sovereign nation argument is that the USA itself rebelled against a sovereign nation. The USA states that it was justified to do so, because the British had violated the natural rights of its citizens here. As such, by not extending natural rights to those who visit the country undermines its government's authority to rule, as well as its moral authority to judge the actions of other nations. — ernestm

The fundamental rights of US citizens are set forth in the Constitution, however it may be interpreted. Those rights are possessed by those within US borders. To the extent the Declaration was based upon inalienable rights, it does not, nor ever has, any force of law. When determining whether a law is valid, the Courts look to statutes, regulations, prior case law, and the Constitution. They do not look to general notions of natural law.

In a real quandary here. I'm planning on visiting the US. Should I tell them my Google+ handle is ledzkiltrumpwidfyre? Or should I just leave that one out? :chin:

It is an annoyance and hypocritical, but I don't see a problem here that could affect anyone with a cunning index higher than, say, an amoeba. — Baden

I know how to successfully steal a candy bar as well.

If it has a price, it's not free. :joke: — unenlightened

Yes, you’re right. I woke up this morning and realised my error.

Edit: what I’ve since realised is that the restriction of travel as a price to pay is no different than going to prison, it’s an attempt to shut down speech. The opportunity to speak your mind is always there whether it’s on social media or on the street, there’s nothing to stop you except the price knocking on your door.

I'm confused as to why a non-resident has standing to object to the entry requirements of a foreign sovereign.
— Hanover

The problem with the sovereign nation argument is that the USA itself rebelled against a sovereign nation. The USA states that it was justified to do so, because the British had violated the natural rights of its citizens here. As such, by not extending natural rights to those who visit the country undermines its government's authority to rule, as well as its moral authority to judge the actions of other nations. — ernestm

This doesn’t seem to answer Hanover’s post for me. Can you send explain a bit more?

You'd have to tell me what appears unclear about the statement.

there is a difference between constitutional rights and natural rights.

The declaration of independence states that the british violated natural rights, and therefore no longer had authority to rule. The justification has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

there is a difference between constitutional rights and natural rights.

The declaration of independence states that the british violated natural rights, and therefore no longer had authority to rule. The justification has nothing to do with constitutional rights. — ernestm

That's a good summary of what I said.

As to your prior comment that the US cannot justify immigration standards, my comment remains that such are not inconsistent with American law and natural law has never been used as an impediment for any American policy decision.

Abandoning universal rights to privacy and free speech requires first granting them...

The US cannot abandon them for it has never granted them.

Abandoning universal rights to privacy and free speech requires first granting them...

The US cannot abandon them for it has never granted them. — creativesoul

:razz:

(My mistake, took me a sec to figure out how emotes work on this forum :sweat:)