1079
French scientist denied US entry after phone messages critical of Trump found
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
1079 points (99.5% liked)
World News
45320 readers
5659 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Consent in a situation like this is difficult to establish, to the point of it being pointless. Your comment implies to me that you think if the person said "OK" to a search request then whatever happened next is their own fault.
Consider just the situation where you're in the immigration line and two uniformed officers walk up to you and say, "please come with us." If you go with them, is that voluntary? If you say "yes" I just think "voluntary" doesn't hold much meaning. What happens if you don't volunteer to go with them? Surely, they say, "come with us now or you'll be arrested." And if you don't volunteer at that point, they'll physically restrain you and take you away.
Since most people are able to understand the subtext of the situation, they're able to tell that, "please come with us" actually means "you are required to come with us now. You may either walk of your own accord, or we will take you captive and punish you beyond whatever we initially intended." So, there's not any consent happening. Just deciding whether being beaten and dragged away in public would be helpful to you, and in many cases it is not.
You might be confusing US law around unlawful search and seizure with US law around border crossings. While the ACLU's position is that the 4th amendment trumps CBP, CBP's position is that it does not and that you cannot stop them.
Hard disagree.
Did they ask him if they could search and he said yes, or no? Or did they just take his device away from him and did a search without his permission?
Consenting to a search, or have one mandated by a judge's order, is one of the fundamental pillars of citizen rights and laws in this country.
Was it a legal or illegal search? That's not a pointless question to ask.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I notice you asked for an explanation and then only sort-of read the first sentence.
No, I read the whole thing, fully. I just disagreed with your analogy, thought it was a bad one, too verbose and obfuscating of the subject being talked about. Also it didn't cover someone searching your belongings with/without your permission, the subject being talked about. Law officials have more legal leeway to detain you than they do to search your belongings without your permission, so your analogy doesn't work (especially when you throw in beatings into it).
Also, didn't think your last paragraph was legally accurate, but didn't want to bother arguing the point, since 'amendment > law > policy/rule' is a well-known given. I'm aware of the difference. When I asked my original question, it was to confirm if the border enforcement people were actually honoring the 4th amendment, or not, whatever their thought processes were.
I did appreciate you taking the time to reply (and civilly at that) though, thank you. P.S. I hope the tone of my reply wasn't too harsh, it wasn't meant to be rude, just straightforward.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~