I would think the Bill of Rights applies equally to citizens or non-citizens. That includes the First Amendment. That includes the right to freedom of speech and expression of opposition to whatever he or she desires. The freedom of speech is part of the 'truths' that are self-evident. And almost every time, the Congress tried to restrict these rights, they were struck by the courts. This isn't about demolishing the state, as communists would want to do. This isn't about changing the constitutional order, as any totalitarian party would have to do. This is about a right of a person to express his or her opinion without repercussions.
"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”
The bill of rights does not apply equally to both citizens and non-citizens. There’s a deep history of cases testing most of those amendments on this line, some landing one way, some landing another, and a few “it depends”.
And a district court judge’s rather inappropriate screed sets no legal precedent. It’s old man yells at clouds. It would be relevant to discuss founding documents or Supreme Court opinions.
I never claimed it set a precedent. But a federal judge in this case claimed "The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction [between citizens and legal non-citizens] and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence."
In our history OR jurisprudence! You seem to claim otherwise, if I am not mistaken. So, it behooves you to provide evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what precedent-setting Supreme Court decision claims that the First Amendment does not apply to non-US citizens?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A good friend of mine has a somewhat similar story. Originally from Germany, she is a visiting researcher at an American university on a J-1 visa. Her husband is a refugee in Germany, who is going through education there and working toward obtaining German citizenship this summer. She used to travel to Germany often to see him since he cannot visit her in the United States because of his citizenship (his country is on a list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States). Her employment was under a two-year contract, which was renewed for another year. Now she needs to renew her J-1 visa, which means she needs to travel to a consulate in Germany to do it. The US embassies have suspended issuing these visas. Their website says the decision to issue an emergency J-1 visa is on a case-by-case basis. She applied for an appointment. The embassy did not see her case as "an emergency", so her application was denied. It all happened before the EO was issued yesterday, which exacerbated her stress even further. She cannot pack up and move things, like many of her books or furniture, for example, because the shipping of these things between the United States and the European Union has been suspended due to COVID-19, as far as I understand it. She doesn't have a job in Germany and jobs in academia are hard to come by these days. And academia is not quick processing job applications. It can take months or even a couple of years before a decision is made. She cannot continue working on her book, which hurts her chances of employment in the future. So she is stuck in the US, where at least she can continue to work. He is stuck in Germany. They haven't seen each other in months.
Auburn, Indiana has been offering municipal internet since 2005[1]. The town needed fast internet to keep companies from leaving to big cities. So, the town decided to build on its municipal public utilities to proide also fast internet. Naturally, it ran into resistence from Verizon. But when the town council has asked the company to provide fast internet service to the community, the company said it was too expensive to do that. I remember that because I attended the town council meetings on this issue.
A side note. The cost of living here in Pittsburgh is much, much lower than in SF or in NYC. According to a Cost of Living calculator, to maintain the same living standard in Pittsburgh at $60K, you have to make $137K in SF.
My university education experience seems to contradict this notion. Many classes were heavily focused on Java to allow students to learn data structures and object-oriented programming, in general. Other classes, like Operating Systems Programming were focused on C. In the end, you learn that there is the right tool for the right job.
I think you misunderstood my post (or perhaps I wasn't able to articulate the point clearly).
My University computer science was also broken up as you describe. The introductory class was in Pascal, the next course was Java, and then each course used its own language.
I can't comment on my own observations because I don't have enough experience with this. However, some suggest that default choices are hard to resist: whether it's online or off. NYT wrote about that several years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/technology/default-choices...
While it may be difficult to explain to civilians what Github is, the issues of any government overreach into the Internet domain are easy to understand. For instance, a state does not like particular content on the Internet. It wants to force a company to get rid of it by attempting to hamper the company's service. Google's clash in China over censorship has been wildly covered by the media.
"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282...