Concerns the CEO of the CCDH's attempt to fight his impending deportation from the United States after his visa was revoked by the Trump administration for siccing European regulators on American tech companies.
Concerns the CEO of the CCDH's attempt to fight his impending deportation from the United States after his visa was revoked by the Trump administration for siccing European regulators on American tech companies.
The gall of this dude coming here to shred the First Amendment and then whining when he's told to go do that shit somewhere else. Works directly with Ofcom, wants to do away with Section 230, "Center for Countering Digital Hate," wtf.
Not sure they legally went about this the right way but there must be some way to punt assholes like this.
The gall of this dude coming here to shred the First Amendment and then whining when he's told to go do that shit somewhere else. Works directly with Ofcom, wants to do away with Section 230, "Center for Countering Digital Hate," wtf.
Not sure they legally went about this the right way but there must be some way to punt assholes like this.
These people are absolutely shameless. They spend their entire lives bashing the First Amendment, trying to circumvent it by importing foreign censorship regimes, and now want to rely on it when the Uncle Sam wants to put a stop to it. Not to mention that the U.K./Canada/Australia regularly denies entry to and deports people for speech they don't like.
Fortunately, apart from Ahmed, the other four sanctioned individuals don't have a leg to stand on because the consular nonreviewability doctrine doesn't allow aliens outside the U.S. to challenge U.S. visa decisions. But Ahmed is a green card holder in the U.S.
My prediction is that the higher courts will decide this almost entirely on the basis of 8 USC § 1182(a)(3)(C).
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception for officials
An alien who is an official of a foreign government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.
(iii) Exception for other aliens
An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
(iv) Notification of determinations
If a determination is made under clause (iii) with respect to an alien, the Secretary of State must notify on a timely basis the chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations of the Senate of the identity of the alien and the reasons for the determination.
Ahmed's complaint notes that under 8 USC § 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii), aliens shouldn't be excluded from the United States on the basis of protected speech unless the alien's presence "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest," which is a higher threshold than the sub-subparagraph (i) requirement that the Secretary of State "reasonably believes" that the alien's presence has "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences".
It's worth noting that the State Department announcement banning Ahmed refers only to 8 USC § 1182(a)(3)(C) generally, and not to any specific sub-subparagraph, so theoretically, the State Department could CYA and send out its notification to Congress as required by sub-subparagraph (iv) in the coming weeks. We'll have to wait and see.
According to PACER the case is currently assigned to Loretta A. Preska, who to my knowledge is a moderately conservative judge, but it's possible that the State Dept will try to move the case to D.C. (where the State Dept is, and where Ahmed lives). It's also more likely than not that the party losing at the district level will appeal and is ultimately resolved by SCOTUS or the 2nd Circuit or the D.C. Circuit (if transferred).
And while I do think the State Dept will eventually win (because I find it hard to imagine that SCOTUS would allow a lower court to essentially neutralise the Secretary of State's 8 USC § 1182(a)(3)(C) power), this lawsuit does force the State Dept to elaborate on its exact reasoning, which will piss off the Eurocrats no matter how measured or aggressive the langugage is. That's probably the only reason Ahmed wants to fight instead of just buying a ticket back to London and running the CCDH from there. Ahmed can martyr himself and get unlimited funding from Brussels and Westminster for his future projects when all this is said and done; and whatever the State Department says in its response will only, inevitably, escalate the rift between the US and UK/EU on tech regulation and free speech. He's trying to "rally the troops" and betting that the UK/EU's vision of the internet will ultimately prevail.
Agreed, and I believe Marco Rubio explicitly cited that statute in his press release. While lawful permanent residents do have most of the protections of the Bill of Rights, they don't have all of them, and in particular, with regards to the discretionary decision as to whether to allow a foreign national to remain in the country, stuff like advocating for terrorism or, in this case, attempting to undermine the Constitutional order, need not be tolerated.
So, for instance, I believe an LPR could not be criminally prosecuted for First Amendment protected speech, or denied a jury trial in a legal case, he is not protected by the First Amendment against deportation, something that could not be legally done to any actual U.S. citizen, naturalized or not (barring the rare case where fraud in naturalization rendered it void at the outset).
Should have become a citizen if he wanted to do that shit.
Also, his direct work with numerous foreign governments to influence U.S. policy strongly suggests he should be registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. If he isn't, that's a crime.
I'm still contemplating a thread, maybe not on the case (which I believe will go nowhere fast), but on this dude himself. Does anyone know anything about this guy? His name was new to me but from his own complaint, he is an evil fuck who has his fingers in many evil pies.
Agreed, and I believe Marco Rubio explicitly cited that statute in his press release. While lawful permanent residents do have most of the protections of the Bill of Rights, they don't have all of them, and in particular, with regards to the discretionary decision as to whether to allow a foreign national to remain in the country, stuff like advocating for terrorism or, in this case, attempting to undermine the Constitutional order, need not be tolerated.
So, for instance, I believe an LPR could not be criminally prosecuted for First Amendment protected speech, or denied a jury trial in a legal case, he is not protected by the First Amendment against deportation, something that could not be legally done to any actual U.S. citizen, naturalized or not (barring the rare case where fraud in naturalization rendered it void at the outset).
Should have become a citizen if he wanted to do that shit.
Also, his direct work with numerous foreign governments to influence U.S. policy strongly suggests he should be registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. If he isn't, that's a crime.
I'm still contemplating a thread, maybe not on the case (which I believe will go nowhere fast), but on this dude himself. Does anyone know anything about this guy? His name was new to me but from his own complaint, he is an evil fuck who has his fingers in many evil pies.
I was wondering if we could have a general thread for minor legal happenings that don't deserve their own thread like evictions?
Laur Trueman is getting evicted and filing hilarious and schizophrenic things. Yaniv has gotten evicted recently and Alta West is seeking to get the locks changed on his condo and assaulted the process server in court, and she joined the farms to talk about it.
This board is one of the most high-value and unique parts of the entire site, and interestingly it provides near-zero risk to the site as court documents are public record and discussion of court filings are perhaps the most protected form of speech in the entire country. As such as I am spending some development time adding a new feature: automatic, inline docket tracking. It will pull from public APIs and look something like this (accordion, so you click-to-expand).
I just put one together in PG. Links and part of the analysis still WIP.
I'm not sure how Null wants to treat this one, since his announcement is its own big thread. If he wants to make his own, if it should stay outside the Lolcow LLC board, etc. Since it's just the complaint and service right now, there's not too much I can include beyond the parties, the background, and the DMCA abuse (which Null already explained).
Mods can move it wherever or nuke it, if it looks acceptable then I'll keep adding to it.
FYI I have a courtlistener account that I pay for to support their project. It has some features such as document prayers that I can make use of. If there's any requests please let me know.
