Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.

When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).

They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back.

That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category.

If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?*

I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account.

From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine?

[0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.

"Let's not discuss this specific government policy, because should governments even exist" is not very interesting.

Which is why the guy in the article is wrong:

> I don't feel there is any point in contacting the State Department, nor do I think they have any power against such a powerful and strict country as the United States

That's exactly what he should have done if things happened as described and the Norwegian government should then take appropriate action.

It was the parent to my comment that was suggesting otherwise.

Not even remotely the case

From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.

Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").

Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.

No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.

It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.

In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.

IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat).

* https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

> Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights.

* https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...

I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.

What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."

Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.

When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights

If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.

By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.

It took Erdogan 20 years to dismantle the core of the secular republic for example , arguably he hasn’t finished it.

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have... (https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm)

There is an infrastructure of fascism (fox, palantir, clearview, heritage foundation, federalist society, Facebook, CPAC, etc.), but the infrastructure of democracy has been hollowed out by people who just want to enrich themselves by stock trading with privileged information. It is not profitable to challenge power, and it is rewarding to submit to authority. Responsibility for the future is a heavy burden, and nobody wants to bear it. Historically it would have been Christianity that taught responsibility, but Christianity was corrupted and co-opted by the GOP.

There is no pro-democracy party in America to coalesce around and support, only the party of "lesser" evil. The democratic party has very few people who vote for them, most of their voters are voting against the GOP, and the democratic party uses that fact to present candidates they and their corporate backers prefer, rather than candidates the American public prefers. Without institutionally legitimate leaders meeting reality and organizing resistance, many Americans feel hopeless. Most politicians are treating everything like business as usual, which makes it very hard to act, because being disobedient to an authoritarian will be punished, regardless of what laws say or what protections you think you have. You might not be punished today, but we now have a permanent digital record of sorts which ensures that the more power they get, the more your disobedience is likely to be remembered and punished.

There is a prevailing understanding here that nobody has any strategy except "hope", but hope is not a strategy, it only compounds the cost of acknowledging reality as it is, which makes it harder to acknowledge reality and act. You can ask politicians at town halls here "what do we do, we have to do something" and they say "make your voice heard," which betrays the politicians own lack of strategy. The insularity of our politicians prevents them from understanding how villainous they look because they look to eachother for support and affirmation, rather than their constituents. This is fuel on the flame of fascism because when Trump says Washington is a swamp, it's very hard to disagree with, especially juxtaposed with democrats rationalizations of their corruption, especially Pelosi and Schumer.

The average American right now is trying to rationalize to themselves why they are safe, that elections will be coming up and that America will right itself, and that just because things are bad now, they will bounce back when we come to our senses. This focus on justifying why you shouldn't freak out has an opportunity cost of strategizing and planning/executing resistance. Hope and denial are more similar than most would like to admit. Being in a state of hope or denial allows you to avoid asking questions you don't want the answer to because the answer might be devastating. It is that very question that might be devastating that creates and empowers the state of denial and failing to ask it makes disaster inevitable.

We have had so much indoctrination about how good democracy is and how we are democratic, and that we are the example democracy, which have given people the sense that there is nothing they have to do, and no responsibility they personally bear if they wish to continue to remain in a democracy. Lessons of how good democracy is were taught instead of lessons on how to support democracy, what the cost of democracy is, or how to maintain democracy because democracy was a foregone conclusion.

The people who pay the most attention are exhausted and "in trauma," while the average person with average media consumption are fueling their own denial and senses of safety because the reality of the situation has not asserted itself against their denial or their news sources, such as local news (nationalized and owned by the rich who are supporting this coup), keep them in the dark.

It is truly an awful thing to accept and understand that if you don't do something, the bad guys are going to win. It's a common saying, that evil wins through the inaction of good men, but actually emotionally acknowledging it and understanding that saying by asking what it means to do something is a horrible horrible thing. Understanding that if you do not do something and that the you in that saying is yourself, and those actions that good men must take so evil doesn't win are your actions, and the risks of those actions challenging the power of evil are your risks... that's quite a thing to confront.

Meanwhile everyone is broke and precarious.

People aren't very willing to risk everything they have just to get brutalized by a cop that will later be acquitted

America's peers as a country are not Europe, Japan, Turkey, but other very large area, very large population countries i.e. Russia, China, Brazil, India.

I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).

Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.

I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me.

Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.

IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..

Another reality is that people don't actually value personal freedoms, and they happily give that up in exchange for a tiny bit more sense of security. Lots of discussions on this topic assume that westerners believe in freedom of speech, but that's simply not true.