Marco Rubio Sure Has a Weird Definition of Free Speech
Marco Rubio has announced a plan to deny visas to foreigners who censor Americans.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that foreign citizens who engage in online censorship of Americans' speech will be barred from obtaining visas to travel to the U.S.
The announcement is the latest in a series of muddled moves on free speech, with the Trump administration gleefully attempting to punish individuals for their speech all while making overtures at protecting Americans from censorship.
"Even as we take action to reject censorship at home, we see troubling instances of foreign governments and foreign officials picking up the slack. In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so," Rubio said in a Wednesday press release. "It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil. It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States."
Rubio's announcement is relatively vague, though Rubio noted that the policy is aimed at foreign officials who attempt to force U.S.-based tech companies to censor speech that would be First Amendment-protected in America. Foreign censorship—especially in Europe—has been a frequent concern for the Trump administration. In February, Vice President J.D. Vance highlighted laws in several European countries that levy harsh criminal penalties for speech acts like anti-abortion protests or offensive social media posts.
Of course, this latest announcement is no indication that the Trump administration really cares about protecting the right to free speech on American soil. So far, the Trump administration has gleefully targeted visa holders for their speech, detaining international students and university employees for everything from attending a pro-Palestine demonstration to penning an anti-Israel op-ed. Just last week, Rubio announced that visa interviews for prospective international students would temporarily pause while the State Department figures out how to conduct greater scrutiny of students' social media postings.
This hypocrisy is seemingly lost in Rubio. "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country," he wrote on X this week. "Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over."
The Trump administration is more than happy to participate in viewpoint discrimination—and censorship of private news organizations that use disfavored terminology or colleges that fail to capitulate to absurd demands—as long as it benefits their interests.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This hypocrisy is seemingly lost in Rubio.
There is no hypocrisy here. America (and it's citizens) First.
Emma Camp's definition of Free Speech that includes the US issuing visas is more bizarre than anything Rubio has advanced.
This is the problem with being a low-tier DNC mouthpiece, long after the top of the pyramid has figured out a more viable narrative, you're still going to be running with the same "[DeSantis/Vance/Rubio/Cruz/Trump] was wrong about [immigration/free speech/ass sex]." copypasta for weeks until the tested-viable narrative trickles down.
Visa violations aren't a speech issue. Reason remains confused on this point.
At this point, Reason has raised an entire generation on an internet where free speech is protected by Congress rather than something that occurs naturally and Congress shouldn't mess with.
FOSTA/SESTA was the next most obvious step, but the idea that it's the only step is dumb.
In that frame of reference, you could come to understand how someone might, tragically, think "Of course the government should issue people (speech) visas (without the awareness that it can also refuse to do so)."
“ Visa violations aren't a speech issue”
Writing an op-ed is a visa violation? You seem to be the one who is confused. As usual.
Hey dumdum, I've given you the requirements of a visa a half dozen times and you choose ignorance.
Support of enemies or terrorist groups is a violation, even if done in an op ed retard.
Do you pleasure from proving to everyone how retarded you are or something?
What enemies? What terror group? An anti-Israel op-ed is neither.
Broadening the definition of “enemy” and “terrorist” to include anyone who speaks in support of Palestinians or against Israel isn’t a valid position.
I am 100% on the Israeli side on Hamas and the war they started. Israel has been too indiscriminate in its attacks, but it pales in comparison to the Gaza government (Hamas). But pulling the visas of people who condemn Israel isn’t justified. Even celebrating the death of Israelis isn’t a visa violation.
Your definitions are ridiculously broad because it allows you to lie to yourself and pretend you support American values.
You don’t.
Any shithead who doesn’t believe in our constitution can stay the fuck out. We have enough democrats already.
If you haven’t noticed, it’s Republicans who are shitting on the Constitution these days. When you’re the party of “do we RRALLY need due process”, you are not standing up for American values or the Constitution.
There is no hypocrisy here. America (and it's citizens) First.M
In this policy America is second at best. Israel is first.
Free speech first. If you put people before principles, you have no principles.
You have to defend American ideals, even if they don’t help the people you like.
What dumb, senseless comments.
If someone violates the terms of a co tract, they are in violation. They freely entered into that agreement.
Nelson, you remain even dumber than sarc.
No, they haven’t. You keep pretending they have, but your beliefs require a definition of enemy that’s so broad it includes any enemy of an American ally or a definition of terrorist that includes people who don’t like Israel, but do like Palestine.
You are a caricature at this point. No principles, no values, no ideals, just anger and hate.
The idiot is probably a sock for one the retarded writers here.
You didn't complain when Biden called for censorship you hypocrite. That means you can't talk about Trump and it excuses anything he does. After all, Democrats did it first and worse, so that makes it ok. Now shut up and go away.
Literarily the opposite going on here, you deranged drunk.
You can't even bother reading the shit you are trying to troll.
Are you insane, retarded, drunk, stupid, or a combination of the four? This isn't about censorship; it's about not issuing visas to those who censor. I literally linked an article yesterday about it in the Roundup, dumbass.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rubio-announces-visa-restrictions-foreign-nationals-involved-censoring-americans
Yeah, he is OK with Edrogon canceling the shit out of anybody who says anything about him. American, Turkish or Armenian but chickenshit is not going to say anything. This is all performative when you guys get a fucking beatding at the midterms all these assholes better lawyer up.
Dumbass, if Edrogon tries to censor Americans on the internet, he probably won't get a visa here. He's not the one doing that right now. The EUSSR is. Starmer is.
Edrogon Is an authoritarian, and a violent one at that.
Does he donate to ActBlue as well, Nelson?
I’ve never talked about ActBlue. You idiots are the only ones who do that.
So weird how you guys scream about him as you supported the Biden DoJ and legal attacks against enemies, support German actions against the AfD, etc.
Almost like you dont have principles but are just blindly repeating what MSNBC tells you.
I’ve never supported him. Every comment I’ve ever made about him has been negative. He is an authoritarian and a theocrat.
I’m not sure what you would characterize as supporting the DoJ under Biden. Since I’m not an ideologue like you, I like to judge the situations as they arise, not pretend that any large organization is all good or all bad.
And no, I don’t support what Germany is trying to do with the AfD. They’re horrible people with horrible ideas, but in a democracy you have to allow people to be horrible.
“ I literally linked an article yesterday about it in the Roundup, dumbass.”
If you want to be taken seriously, linking ZeroHedge is a terrible way to do it. That’s about as biased and inaccurate a source as you can find.
What was incorrect in the article dumdum?
Are you calling for censorship against unapproved media sources?
I will never click on a ZeroHedge link. I was willing to do that for a couple years, but it always ended up with their take being a gross mischaracterization of facts and/or positions and/or statements. They are a propaganda group for the wingnuts on the right.
I don’t believe in censorship, but choosing to point out that ZeroHedge is garbage and lacks any credibility isn’t censorship. It’s experience. Find someone with some credibility to link to.
You’d jump all over one of shrikes links, especially the one that got his account banned.
I have him blocked, so all I’d see is a grey box.
They, as well as you, defended and obfuscated the censorship.
Visa violations aren't free speech retard.
Writing an op-ed isn’t a visa violation.
Nelson, please be just slightly less of a retard and read the conditions attached to visas.
Writing an anti-Israel op-ed doesn’t violate any of them. Nor does protesting against Israel. Nor does supporting a boycott of Israel.
While I am disturbed by some of their excesses and in full opposition to their illegal settlement policies, I can’t think of a single time I’ve chosen the Palestinians over the Israelis. The Israelis aren’t saints, but they are generally in the right most of the time. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to shill for an extremist definition of “enemy” or “terrorist” like you do.
Keep Quiet!
Take the Swede, Greta Thunberg. She is leaing a group of "acivists" to Israel to instigate trouble.
Greta is entitled to her opinions misguided as they may be. She is not entitled, however, to establish her own laws in foreign countries. Greta is not an Israeli citizen. She is not even Jewish.
Countries have the right to set their laws of foreign entry. To demand that non-citizens not involve themselves in national issues of their hosting country is quite reasonable. If Greta feels obliged to shoot off her mouth in Israel about Israeli affairs, let her return home to do so. No, then she would attract no attention. Too bad!
Israel like the United States, however, will allow the foreigner, Greta, the privilege to undermine the well-being of the nation in the name of "freedom of speech". She should try Communist China next to spout views against autocracy; good luck, Greta, if you do.
Fuck you, Emma. You lying, Nazi politruk. If Reason had even a flicker of its old libertarian soul left, you’d have been canned for this disgrace.
Censoring Americans isn’t ‘speech’—it’s repression, no matter how hard your dead-eyed commissar brain tries to rebrand it. Of course there should be penalties for people who try to muzzle free speech in America. If the little tyrants in Brussels or Beijing can’t handle Americans speaking freely in America, then they shouldn’t allow their platforms to touch a single American device.
And to compare it to a bunch of non-sequiturs that for the most part are deliberate misinterpretations, is a farce.
This isn’t just dishonest—it’s malicious. Even for you.
I don't think anyone is criticizing the Trump administration's efforts to protect American's online speech from foreign governments. It's just the hypocrisy of doing that, while simultaneously punishing foreigners for their online speech.
This was the take on Ron Paul's Liberty report and nothing written here suggests Emma feels differently.
Yes. Citizens and non-citizens are treated differently. Not sure how this is shocking.
The funny thing is they just assume that obliterating or diffusing or dissolving any notion of citizenship somehow means that nobody will ever put them up against the wall and shoot them or punch them in the face.
Because, I guess, everybody just recognizes the inherent value of their meek reliance on everyone else to even be able to have an opinion or to squawk it sanctimoniously at people who don't just assume such value or other-reliance.
Citizenship is an official but unfair part of an unspoken social contract and if you eliminate official citizenship, somehow, the unspoken social contract dissolves rather than becoming simultaneously more nebulous and visceral.
It's a violation of natural rights, which is anything but shocking from a government.
Criminals frequently have natural laws suppressed due to their actions.
“ Not sure how this is shocking.”
Free speech is a right that people have just for being a living, breathing person. Citizenship doesn’t matter.
Note that the Constitution refers to “people” and not “citizens” in the Bill of Rights.
See. This is why you're a complete retard. They aren't criminally going after them for speech. They are removing a privelege granted to them that the visitors agreed to due to their actions.
Be a bit less retarded nelson.
What actions? Writing an op-ed? Protesting against Israel? Neither of those violates any agreement between the government and the visa holders.
Goddamn you’re dumb.
I’m not the one who thinks an anti-Israel op-ed is a visa violation. That’s a uniquely paleocon idiocy.
She agreed to the terms of the visa.
Maybe she should read them next.
Except writing an anti-Israel op-ed doesn’t violate the visa agreement.
“ If Reason had even a flicker of its old libertarian soul left, you’d have been canned for this disgrace.”
Sincere question: do you consider yourself a libertarian?
We know you aren't one.
What's funny is the left has been open about their long march through institutions. You're just one of their foot soldiers. You take what the left wants then try to drape the beliefs of an idea it institutions around it. Often theough pure lies and obfuscation. Such as you not understanding the visa agreements made between the US and a visitor.
I know that the agreement between the government and vis holders isn’t violated by an op-ed. You don’t.
"Sincere question: do you consider yourself a libertarian"
Yes.
Now a more pertinent question. Do you consider yourself a fascist? Explain how you aren't.
I am a libertarian. I support the ideas of individual liberty, the rule of law, and a rights-based social and legal order.
Exactly what “fascist” things do you think I support?
What a lying shit you are,
>>foreign citizens who engage in online censorship of Americans' speech will be barred from obtaining visas to travel to the U.S.
this cannot make more sense. Reason is officially DaveSmith-dot-com
" So far, the Trump administration has gleefully targeted visa holders for their speech, detaining international students and university employees for everything from attending a pro-Palestine demonstration to penning an anti-Israel op-ed."
So the free speech requires the US to keep in the country people who openly support political violence, are members of organizations calling for the overthrow of Western Civilization, trespass and harassment of people going about their business (which is what "attending a pro-Palestine protest" actually means). it is a bit beyond the parameters of "free speech".
You're right. Those people are committing thoughtcrime, and thoughtcrime is death.
And what about people who punish for thoughtcrime? Should we issue visas to people trying to punish Americans for thoughtcrime?
You’re right. Not being allowed into America is thoughtcrime death. Lol.
Emma, perhaps you'd be better suited for Vox. Fuck off.
Meh... if I am understanding this correctly. Government officials from say Belgium don't get to go to UN cocktail parties in NYC if their government threatens Americans outside their jurisdiction.
Then again wish the USA would follow this when it comes to taxes. Claiming taxes are owed from Americans working on foreign soil, seems like the same bit of hubris at play.
It is not hypocrisy. It is intentional, it is fascism. They will come after Americans next.
Has anyone ever told you that you're a retarded moron? If not, here's your chance, you're a retarded moron. Not issuing visas to people who try to censor Americans and violate our first amendment is not fascism, dipshit. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Well, I'm going to bed with a smile on my face. Cheers.
I always love it when actual leftist fascist project their own desires. You are the baddies.
They should come after American officials who violate the 1st amendment.
I'm curious, though. What do you imagine this "coming after Americans" is going to look like?
what does the word fascism mean in this sentence?
The Supreme Court ruling that approved the expulsion of a permanent resident alien on the basis of past membership in the Communist Party, notwithstanding the First Amendment, has not yet been overruled.
And you think that’s a good thing?
Why do you think we should let in communists, Nelson?
Because his biweekly canasta game is extra sad with only three players. Come for the melds, stay for the Marxism.
“ Why do you think we should let in communists, Nelson?”
Because if the only thing they’re guilty of is believing in failed ideologies, that isn’t a valid reason to deny them. Communism is a failed ideology that has never been within spitting distance of being right, but so is supply-side economics.
There is no justification for denying someone entry just because the government doesn’t agree with their viewpoint. That’s about as basic as liberty gets.
Tell me more about this "right" to be invited into your home and call you a whore to your face.
Some people pay for that.
Pretty much every ENB article is that.
The “our country is the same as my home” trope is tiresome. You have absolute power over the policies for your home. We have a Constitution that makes that analogy ridiculous.
Your home is an autocracy, our country is a democratic constitutional republic. There is no equivalence.
It's "tiresome" because you can't overcome it. All you can do is whine like a little girl and pretend that it's not an accurate comparison.
We have absolute power over the policies for our border. Non-citizens get ZERO say in it, and sneaking past it doesn't magically imbue them with American rights or Constitutional guarantees. Nor does being invited. Pissing us off, and us telling them they're no longer welcome here is entirely within our right as a nation.
You are flat out peddling open borders falsehoods, because you know your bogus position has zero merit on its own.
Facts are hurty.
“ It's "tiresome" because you can't overcome it.”
It’s easy to overcome, that’s why people who say it are such fools. There is only one law and one rule for entry into your house: what you say it is. That is not true of the country.
Yes it is true for the country.
That's why we are able to distinguish "citizen" from "non-citizen." That's why we are able to distinguish "American" from "alien." That's why we are able to distinguish "lawful visitor" from "illegal." That's why we are able to distinguish "invitee" from "trespasser."
And it's why people who don't WANT to make those distinctions hide behind nonsense terms like "undocumented migrant" or "seasonal worker." It's especially obnoxious when they characterize violent criminals and obvious gang members as "asylum-seekers" and "refugees." That's an intentional obfuscation. And an attempt to blur those distinctions for the singular purpose of confusing and appealing to emotion.
You haven't overcome anything, and you especially haven't overcome people coming into your home - regardless of whether it's at your invitation or they just straight up climbed in through a window they broke - and calling you a whore. You're weirdly OK with them doing that, for some reason.
Maybe because you are a whore. Maybe because you think you, and this nation that is your home, deserves that. I don't know. I can't hope to understand the mindset of someone who wants others to come into their home and call them a whore.
Y'know, I'd take the open borders nutters a lot more seriously if they were on board with my idea of America just conquering the world. At that point, you'd be right. But for some reason, folks on the left don't want to do that either. It's like you place some kind of social/cultural/ideological value on the garbage nations (ie. nations that are not the USA) and want to impose that value on the USA, against the will of its citizenry, to its detriment and destruction.
What's that about?
Waaaaaaiiiit a minute. Are you a Marxist?
Waaaaaaiiiit a minute. Are you a Marxist?
Given Nelson’s answer to me about letting in communists, it does appear that Nelson is a Marxist.
Why is that in quotes? It makes no sense in quotes and the original didn't use quotes. I have the right to invite you to dinner and you have a right to accept but that does not give you a pass to re-paint my house. An invitiation is always under the terms of the invitor.
My neighbors , friends, co-workers agree with Rubio
'foreign citizens who engage in online censorship of Americans' speech will be barred from obtaining visas to travel to the U.S."
IF X berates me and what I say and think , I do not invite them over for dinner. That is life unless you are Reason writer grabbing for some fame trying to show why you should be where Rubio is.
Your home is not even close to the same as our country.
Lol. You say our country but you want to make it their country. Fucking Marxist shit.
We have been successfully assimilating immigrants for over 200 years. Immigration will never change America. People want to come here because they want to be us, not because they want to change us. This paranoid belief that a few million people will change a country of over 350 million is stupidity at its most absurd.
Immigrants, legal or otherwise, have zero chance to change America. Believing otherwise, whether by left who is hoping for it or the right who is afraid of it, is peak stupidity.
1. Most of those earlier immigrants were from the same or similar places as the founders.
2. When we had unfettered immigration in the late nineteenth century and up till 1924, many of the same issues about assimilation cropped up as we have today.
3. After we called a halt to most immigration, the country had a chance to actually form that “melting pot” everyone likes to point to.
4. When we reopened the doors, these issues started to come back. It’s almost as if unfettered immigration makes assimilation difficult.
Successful assimilation requires that the peoples immigrating be somewhat similar in culture/civilization to those already in the country if done in large numbers, or small, easily assimilatable numbers of immigrants from dissimilar cultures. It’s very difficult to assimilate large numbers of immigrants from dissimilar cultures/civilizations.
Also, you REALLY need to learn what Marxism is. You constantly say it, but are clearly ignorant of what it means.
We’ve learned, and we’ve learned you are a Marxist, Nelson. Now go back to the Open Society.
It was an analogy not an equation ")
Where is the wrong in saying that a person can't come here to use our hospitality and our laws to undermine that very hospitality and those very laws?
Why does anyone think we have an obligation to aid those who are openly trying to destroy us?
Disfavored speech, with very, very few exceptions, is protected by the Constitution. It is a human right, given to all people, not just citizens.
So yes, people do get to come here and say America sucks. It’s one proof, of many, that America doesn’t suck.
Only snowflakes and whiners are afraid of people saying mean things about America. Anyone with a little bit of backbone and confidence can ignore it for the hot air it is.
Nelson, do you understand how contracts and privileges work?
Of course not. You're retarded.
What did they violate? You keep saying they did, but that isn’t true.
No, that is false. Even the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that a natural right brings into existence a polity. What you say makes no sense, since if everybody had it the Founders would not have had to argue that way with what was at the time their own country !!!!
• redistributes American wealth
• NDAA agrees with democrats to murder civilians across the globe
Irrefutable evidence Marco Rubio is Cuban communist mole.
Emma Camp does not sufficiently explain how denying a *non-right to people who want to criminalize speech is somehow not in line with the first amendment. It's as if she thinks handing down criminal indictments against dissidents is itself a form of protected speech instead of a violent act of state. It certainly is not hypocrisy to adopt such policies against bad actors in other nations.
It's like Camp is a first-gen AI bot written by a progressive trying to explain what the freedom of speech actually is.
*The Constitution has given the Legislature absolute authority in defining all rules of naturalization that appears to be unimpeded or modified by later amendment. It is logical to assume this extends to lesser matters of things like visas. If the Congress does not bless the entry of any class of persons, including foreign tyrants, it would appear that it is Constitutional to do so.
This is not as complex as you seem to want to make it. "Congress shall make no law ..." is clear on the face of it. If Congress makes a law that abridges the freedom of speech it is, de facto, an unconstitutional law. If an agency of the Executive branch makes a regulation not based upon a law made by Congress; or a regulation that abridges freedom of speech; it is an unconstitutional regulation and, therefor, unenforceable. The President has the unquestioned authority to deport persons who are in the United States illegally regardless of any freedom of speech rights they might have. The President may NOT deport citizens of the United States. The President may not deport other persons who are in the United States legally without due process to revoke their legal status first, thus rendering them "illegal." All clear now?
You offer no clarity with your view, in fact you muddy it. Your simplistic view creates difficulties and contradiction. keep in mind, I am not giving a blessing to Trump deporting citizens. However, any non citizen who has had deportation orders from an immigration judge has already received "due process". Due process is not "endless process".
Immigration is not a right enshrined in the Constitution and bestowed upon foreigners, nor a principle of natural law. What you are implying is that the Courts now have a say in determining the usage of article 1, section 8's naturalization clause, despite the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution that would give Article 3 courts any review of the matter. The first, fifth, or 14th do not modify this, and there is no historical evidence or original principle to suggest they do; only contrived and unwashed pretend textualism would believe it does.
It would destroy the concept of separation of powers and turn immigration into a "penumbra" right.
The Constitution allows the Congress to bar naturalization on any terms it deems fit, including speech. It does not allow the president to remove non citizens for speech, except if it were prescribed by law because a visa falls under Congresses complete control over the question of naturalization.
This fallacy in logic is called 'assuming what you are trying to prove'
"This fallacy in logic is called 'assuming what you are trying to prove'"
I'm not doing that, and even if I were, it doesn't work the way you believe. There is nothing fallacious about explaining a hypothesis inviting a challenge. The scientific method works like this.
Also, it turns out that what I have been saying is precisely what the courts have said for over a century and the decades since: Immigration is a plenary power of Congress and not subject to review, nor modified by any amendment. Plus, the Courts have stated that "delegation doctrine" says that Congress has fairly put authority in the hands of the President* over the immigration question. Thus, it seems that based on current jurisprudence, Trump throwing antisemites out of the Country is perfectly for speech is perfectly in order.
*I know delegation doctrine is itself problematic, and Trump is certainly not going to go out of his way to resist any favorable situation that works in his favor, but it is what it is.