A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives raises concerns among free speech advocates who fear it could empower the Secretary of State to revoke U.S. passports based on political speech. The bill grants the Secretary of State the authority to deny passports to individuals merely charged with or suspected of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Critics argue that the bill would allow the Secretary of State to bypass legal processes and unilaterally strip passports, potentially targeting individuals for their views. The bill’s language mirrors a previous attempt to limit nonprofit status based on similar grounds, raising alarms about thought policing and the potential for subjective interpretations to restrict fundamental rights.
Read More
A new bill introduced by Rep. Brian Mast raises concerns among civil liberties advocates due to its potential to grant the Secretary of State, mirroring actions taken by Secretary Rubio, the power to revoke passports based on speech deemed to support terrorism. This legislation, part of a larger State Department reorganization, allows passport denial or revocation for individuals convicted or merely charged with providing material support to terrorism, or who are determined to have aided a designated foreign terrorist organization. Critics like Seth Stern and the ACLU’s Kia Hamadanchy argue that these provisions could punish individuals for their opinions and could be used to silence dissenting voices, potentially targeting journalists, and lacks meaningful appeal processes. The bill has faced scrutiny, particularly in light of similar past attempts to penalize groups and individuals based on their views on political issues, including pro-Palestinian activism.
Read More
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives has raised concerns among free speech advocates. The legislation could potentially grant the Secretary of State the authority to revoke U.S. passports without due process, based on an individual’s perceived support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. Critics argue this would allow the Secretary of State to act as judge, jury, and executioner, especially considering previous instances of visa revocations based on political views. The bill’s language mirrors provisions from previous legislative attempts, raising further concerns about the potential for thought policing and the targeting of protected speech.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker