This comment seems like an entirely disingenuous argument for me. I'm sorry if it's not, truly, but it's an argument fit for a Fox News editorial.
> There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home.
Do you mean there are things that non-citizens can say at the border of entry to the US that might prohibit entry into the US? That does not seem like a limitation of free speech within the US to US citizens to me.
> There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for their speech. We don't know because the proceedings are secret.
What a convenient, non-falsifiable "rebuttal" that takes no position on the matter.
> Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places.
I'm a defender of Edward Snowden and think it's sad that he has to live in Russia to avoid prosecution. And yet, this doesn't seem like an argument about "free speech" made in good faith, particularly the relative merits of free speech. Which country permits their citizens to disclose highly classified information with not repercussions, however unjust those repercussions may ultimately be?
>> Which country permits their citizens to disclose highly classified information with not repercussions, however unjust those repercussions may ultimately be?
Yeah, its free speech, as long as it doesn't fall under some bullshit definition of "classified" (how convenient that the classified information also includes unilateral infringement of another country's rights, e.g. the downright creepy snooping on the phones of world leaders who are supposed allies). And of course, you should also understand that you _might_ die saying certain things, but hey, otherwise its free speech. And finally, as long as you understand the "relative" merits of the case (i.e. one rule for me, another for you), we can all agree that free speech is what is being practiced in the USA.
> There are plenty of things you can say at the border that will get you on the next plane back home.
Do you mean there are things that non-citizens can say at the border of entry to the US that might prohibit entry into the US? That does not seem like a limitation of free speech within the US to US citizens to me.
> There may or may not be people being held in captivity without access to a lawyer for their speech. We don't know because the proceedings are secret.
What a convenient, non-falsifiable "rebuttal" that takes no position on the matter.
> Someone who practiced his freedom of speech is currently in hiding in liberty-loving Russia of all places.
I'm a defender of Edward Snowden and think it's sad that he has to live in Russia to avoid prosecution. And yet, this doesn't seem like an argument about "free speech" made in good faith, particularly the relative merits of free speech. Which country permits their citizens to disclose highly classified information with not repercussions, however unjust those repercussions may ultimately be?