It's quite a twist of events. While some people, notably immigrants and foreign visitors, are being kept out, some people apparently are (would be) getting kept in.
It's an unusual form of punishment. Not prison or money or community service, or ban from performing actions or duties, like with most crimes. No - you cannot leave the country. I can't think of any other crime for which this is the ultimate punishment (it can be a temporary one, but usually just to make sure people don't run away before a final judgment is made).
And I suppose for this to make any sense, this must apply only to actions that fall short of incitement to violence or terrorism - because for those you go to o prison. It must be things that, applied to not-Israel, are not crimes at all - else the law would be redundant. So I'm picturing something like, someone attensing a peaceful pro-Palestinian rally, and being told they cannot leave the country. Maybe even less, since people are already being prosecuted for that, with existing laws.
Most punishments involve some element of separating the perpetrator from the society. States pay money for prisons to keep criminals away, people are banned from professions where they screwed up. But here people are forced, at the expense of the US budget, to remain in the US among Americans.
It’s been used before to punish political speech, especially during the Mcarthy era against “un american” speech like support for labor rights where the government couldn’t win in court. I thought we had all agreed that was bad and moved passed it, but, I guess not.
(Notably it was used against WEB Du Boise and then when it was lifted and he traveled to Ghana, the US state department refused to renew his passport stranding him there until he became a Ghanaian citizen.)
Younger v Harris was in 1971 and was about the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, which was among the most blatant statutory violations of free speech in the country's history. While the courts did not okay the law on its merits, they did create a ridiculous procedural hurdle for people being unconstitutionally tried under it. The law was only repealed in 91.
Trump is a monster and he is dismantling our legal system. But it is not the case that in the past we had a functional democracy and rule of law and now we don't. We very briefly had a glimpse of a functioning pluralism, which was never allowed to fully take root.
Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and there is also a First Amendment carveout just below the definition.
I wonder if this would have legs in the current Congress. Probably depends on how popular the other parts of the bill are (I have no idea what it's about, but I saw there's lots of other stuff in there).
Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance.
The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training".
In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
I specifically said that it does include some speech. I even referred to the definition's mention of "training" — which the WaPo article you linked to calls out.
The direct assistance was still speech. Providing training to people on how to engage lawfully with the international legal system is speech. The court has not found that only speech that "expresses an idea" is protected speech.
The bill (HR 5300, Section 226) does not actually say that.
> Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.
That's an administrative hearing, not a court one. One could presumably still sue over this, but the likely end result is SCOTUS saying "nah".
FIRE or the ACLU would likely represent affected citizens for free, even if they do things that are likely over the line. They would want to see the line drawn appropriately (which in their case means in a very free speech-friendly way).
Well, that's moving the goalposts a bit. This strikes at the core of FIRE's work, and even though the ACLU has backed away from free speech a bit in recent years (based on the possible impact the speech would have on other priorities for the ACLU), I think in this case that would not be a limiting factor for them.
These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.
This is one of many signs that manufacturing of consent doesn't work anymore. In the absence of such acquiescence from the people, western governments are resorting more and more to active and violent repression of voices outside the allowed "mainstream consensus".
First they did it to foreign nationals, now they're turning the same weapons against their own citizens.
Elected representatives frequently introduce bills that have no chance of passing or being considered. This proposed legislation is only to gain points with the electorate: "I introduced a bill to ban/promote XYZ but it was killed by the other side". It's red-cape waving. I would like to come up with a name for this behavior but I'm trying to restrict my use of bad language and negative thinking.
This bill is obviously unethical, and furthermore appears to be illegal under the supreme court ruling Kent v. Dulles, which establishes the right to international travel (and thus a passport) a liberty that cannot be deprived without due process of law. So there would at least have to be a criminal hearing of some kind, unless the Supreme Court were to go back on this ruling (not impossible).
I've never heard of this outlet before. Does anyone know about them (who owns them, if they have typical journalistic standards, etc.)? I typically check these things when I come across a news site that I was not previously aware of, especially when the content relates to contentious topics.
> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.
Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?
I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.
That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.
When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced.
For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite).
These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).
> Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.
The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic.
Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.
> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.
This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.
I've followed The Cradle for a couple of years. For what it's worth I've been able to corroborate much of what is published against other sources, and I believe it's entirely funded by donations.
Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.
I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
It looked like AI slop, but if you click through, they’re actually quoting their sources verbatim. (No clue how the source compiles its ratings, however.)
The Cradle is a pretty well respected analysis site, which is often referenced to by other independent journalists. Just as in the late 1930's-40's, most respected, independent journalists would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Nazism, similarly, most respected independent journalists today would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Zionism & Israel.
Case in point, the other comment referencing a headline "Israel & rape" from the Cradle. Well, that's because the Israeli's do have a mass campaign of both torture & rape on Palestinian prisoners/hostages. Which has been confirmed even by former State Dept officials. Not to mention OPEN ADMISSION of this policy, widely, across Israeli media & politics. Down to streaming the rapes live to HQ (one of which was the one that was leaked and went viral), and then openly glorifying the SELF-CONFESSING rapist live on TV.
None of the above is a sensationalising the truth. It's just a strict, verbatim recounting of the truth, as admitted to (in self glorifying terms) by the accused. So it's not a sign of bias. If the plain, unvarnished, completely verified truth feels like bias to anyone, that's not a commentary on the messenger. It's a commentary on the observer.
It's funny how people only question who owns an outlet when said outlet has the gall to report the truth.
You never see people question the gaff that garbage like VOA or NPR spit out on a daily basis.
(Also: look up '61% of israeli men'. That's what they're open to voluntarily admitting. You can only imagine how deep the rot goes inside that sick 'society'.)
> A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September.
I'm pretty suspicious of the outlet, but even if it was the New York Times, no one should pay attention to this bill until there's some strong indication it may actually pass. Bonkers bills get introduced all the time and go nowhere. If you get worked up over them, you're wasting your energy.
I'm sorry, what? The Secretary of State is trying to subvert the first amendment and punish people for not supporting a genocidal foreign state by taking away his political opposition's ability to leave or enter the country.
It is downright preposterous to insinuate you can't be upset or demand accountability until after the authoritarian has all the votes and power they require and it's too late to do anything.
Proposing this alone should have Marc Rubio stripped of his position and blacklisted from office by public opinion. The fact it's not is a sign of how inept the American political system actually is.
ADL and AIPAC must be registered as foreign agents and closely monitored. They interfere in usa politics and elections much more than war criminal Putin ever did.
Sounds like a time a significant percentage of Americans would have considered to be "great" and that they would like to make those things happen again. We know for a fact they aren't pushing for similar tax rates to when America was "great". So what exactly are they referring to? Not a single conservative in existence has been banned from social media because of their passion for debating tax rates. So what is it exactly that is getting conservatives banned?
We have to dance around this bullshit for some reason. Conservatives get kicked out of social media platforms for being outright hateful bigots. If people are getting "cancelled" for being "conservative" then you're admitting that conservative ideology is far more intrinsically tied to racism and xenophobia than it is balancing budgets which is something the Republican party hasn't been able to do for half a century at least. This is the "fuck your feelings" not the "budgets must be balanced" crowd after all.
I think what we're seeing here is that conservatives are learning how to weaponize "politically correct" language. It doesn't matter one bit how many conservatives not just online but elected fucking officials say terrible shit. They are quite happy to cheer on the assassination of elected Democrats and the assault of a Democratic senator's husband. They will make jokes about it just being a jilted gay lover and not the incredibly common right wing fucking nutbag that it so often ends up being. They, including Charlie Kirk, are on record calling for people like Joe Biden to be executed and we're just supposed to roll with it. But don't pay proper respects to a racist piece of shit being killed by the very thing he defended and suddenly they clutch their pearls to the point where they create databases to track folks not being properly saddened to get them "cancelled". To get cancelled from the left you have to be a sex pest or an abuser or an abject racist. But to get cancelled from the right you just have to post quotes from their dead heroes back to them.
Wow, I just posted on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45251052) that I thought it was sad to live in a third world country where I have to get a passport to get a vaccine. Now the Nazis don't want me to be able to get a passport if I point out Israel appears to be committing war crimes.
I've heard people across both reddit and HN claim that this violates 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article IV of the Constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Article IV (Privileges and Immunities Clause): The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states.
Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause): The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of liberty without being deprived of it without due process of law has also been cited by the Supreme Court as a basis for the right to travel, including international travel.
Ninth Amendment: This amendment protects certain fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, including the right to travel.
14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal treatment regardless of residency.
But I guess what really matters at the end of the day is what a judge interprets those laws to mean.
Or a self-contradictory opinion that is 5-4 in the first half, and 5-4 in the second half, but they’re almost entirely different 5-4s (and god knows how ACB was able to split the difference and sign on to both).
And somehow it’s the fault of the district courts if they can’t interpret this madness.
> The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states
Most importantly, no liberty of US citizens shall be limited without due process.
This bill would allow State Dept (neocons Marco Rubio who just traveled to Israel and met their prime minister) a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process, just through Marco Rubio’s discretion
> if you have the right to travel between internal states
The relevant cases are Corfield and Paul [1].
They restrict states. Not the federal government. And since 1926, “the presidential administration” has explicitly had the power to “deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time.”
It's quite a twist of events. While some people, notably immigrants and foreign visitors, are being kept out, some people apparently are (would be) getting kept in.
It's an unusual form of punishment. Not prison or money or community service, or ban from performing actions or duties, like with most crimes. No - you cannot leave the country. I can't think of any other crime for which this is the ultimate punishment (it can be a temporary one, but usually just to make sure people don't run away before a final judgment is made).
And I suppose for this to make any sense, this must apply only to actions that fall short of incitement to violence or terrorism - because for those you go to o prison. It must be things that, applied to not-Israel, are not crimes at all - else the law would be redundant. So I'm picturing something like, someone attensing a peaceful pro-Palestinian rally, and being told they cannot leave the country. Maybe even less, since people are already being prosecuted for that, with existing laws.
Most punishments involve some element of separating the perpetrator from the society. States pay money for prisons to keep criminals away, people are banned from professions where they screwed up. But here people are forced, at the expense of the US budget, to remain in the US among Americans.
It’s been used before to punish political speech, especially during the Mcarthy era against “un american” speech like support for labor rights where the government couldn’t win in court. I thought we had all agreed that was bad and moved passed it, but, I guess not.
(Notably it was used against WEB Du Boise and then when it was lifted and he traveled to Ghana, the US state department refused to renew his passport stranding him there until he became a Ghanaian citizen.)
Most importantly no due process, no court judgement required. Just the discretion of Marco Rubio
Imagine if Nixon tried this during the Vietnam War.
Ofcourse America was still a functional democracy with the rule of law back then. His own party stabbed Nixon in the back when he got too crazy.
Younger v Harris was in 1971 and was about the California Criminal Syndicalism Act, which was among the most blatant statutory violations of free speech in the country's history. While the courts did not okay the law on its merits, they did create a ridiculous procedural hurdle for people being unconstitutionally tried under it. The law was only repealed in 91.
Trump is a monster and he is dismantling our legal system. But it is not the case that in the past we had a functional democracy and rule of law and now we don't. We very briefly had a glimpse of a functioning pluralism, which was never allowed to fully take root.
Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support". [1] It appears not to include speech (though "training" could fall into this camp), and there is also a First Amendment carveout just below the definition.
I wonder if this would have legs in the current Congress. Probably depends on how popular the other parts of the bill are (I have no idea what it's about, but I saw there's lots of other stuff in there).
1: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
>No, material support has been ruled to include speech in the past: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/06/22/c...
Your claim that "material support included speech in the past" is misleading because it misses the crucial distinction between public discourse and direct assistance. The First Amendment continues to fully protect public advocacy. You can write, speak, and argue publicly in favor of any cause. What the Supreme Court prohibited was not the expression of an idea, but the action of providing a professional service directly to a designated organization, such as giving "expert advice" or "training".
In short, the law distinguishes between expressing an independent opinion (which is legal) and using your speech as an expert tool to help a group operate (which is not).
My point is OP is wrong that it doesn't include speech. It includes some speech.
I specifically said that it does include some speech. I even referred to the definition's mention of "training" — which the WaPo article you linked to calls out.
The direct assistance was still speech. Providing training to people on how to engage lawfully with the international legal system is speech. The court has not found that only speech that "expresses an idea" is protected speech.
Who is the judge? Looks like there is no due process, just the discretion of Marco Rubio is enough to revoke passport/visa
The bill says that it can be challenged in court. But in the first instance, the Secretary of State would make the decision.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
The bill (HR 5300, Section 226) does not actually say that.
> Any individual who, in accordance with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the Secretary, may request a hearing to appeal such denial or revocation not later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or revocation.
That's an administrative hearing, not a court one. One could presumably still sue over this, but the likely end result is SCOTUS saying "nah".
How many tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees does it cost to challenge something like this in court?
FIRE or the ACLU would likely represent affected citizens for free, even if they do things that are likely over the line. They would want to see the line drawn appropriately (which in their case means in a very free speech-friendly way).
They only have so much money and lawyer hours.
Well, that's moving the goalposts a bit. This strikes at the core of FIRE's work, and even though the ACLU has backed away from free speech a bit in recent years (based on the possible impact the speech would have on other priorities for the ACLU), I think in this case that would not be a limiting factor for them.
These organizations have tons of money and can bring on outside counsel to supplement their own. Also, merely having them on record as defending you would go a very long way in settlement negotiations. The bigger practical hurdle is knowing they exist in the first place, if you're affected. Presumably a quick chat with an LLM would point someone in their direction though.
Yeah, the courts don't even have to involved. All you need to do is be charged, and they can revoke the passport, even if charges are later dropped.
> Looks like the key language is the definition of "material support"…
That'll mysteriously get two wildly different in-practice definitions.
This is one of many signs that manufacturing of consent doesn't work anymore. In the absence of such acquiescence from the people, western governments are resorting more and more to active and violent repression of voices outside the allowed "mainstream consensus".
First they did it to foreign nationals, now they're turning the same weapons against their own citizens.
The party of small government strikes again!
This is the uniparty at work.
[flagged]
Elected representatives frequently introduce bills that have no chance of passing or being considered. This proposed legislation is only to gain points with the electorate: "I introduced a bill to ban/promote XYZ but it was killed by the other side". It's red-cape waving. I would like to come up with a name for this behavior but I'm trying to restrict my use of bad language and negative thinking.
>>to gain points with the electorate
are you 100% sure the point of this bill that punishes free speech is to gain points with electorate? or perhaps the donor-class ?
This bill is obviously unethical, and furthermore appears to be illegal under the supreme court ruling Kent v. Dulles, which establishes the right to international travel (and thus a passport) a liberty that cannot be deprived without due process of law. So there would at least have to be a criminal hearing of some kind, unless the Supreme Court were to go back on this ruling (not impossible).
I've never heard of this outlet before. Does anyone know about them (who owns them, if they have typical journalistic standards, etc.)? I typically check these things when I come across a news site that I was not previously aware of, especially when the content relates to contentious topics.
> The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which functions as a front for Israeli intelligence in the US
This sentence does not appear to be backed up by the article it is linking to, and the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet.
Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
> the vibe of it makes me somewhat suspicious of the outlet. Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
You see an obviously ludicrous bill, and instead of asking “How did this bill even get here in the first place?” you instead question whether or not the source is (I’m assuming) anti semitic?
I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, because otherwise that’s a very underhanded way to run defense for a genocidal ideology.
That this law was even proposed indicates there’s some very anti-American forces running our government.
When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced.
For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite).
These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).
See the last line of my comment.
> Nonetheless, if the law is being proposed, it is stupid
All i was doing was saying specific wording used in the article causes me to update slightly against the site being unbiased and neutral. There is no grand conspiracy by me here. There is no comment nor opinion on Israel/Palestine within the comment.
The top comment on HN discussions often devolve into various other discussions. Funny that is never 'underhanded' discussion, but outside of the pale when it comes to this topic. You can't have a good faith HN discussion on this topic.
Normally on HN people refute arguments, not resort to just 'bad faith'.
The article it cites says this (emphasis added):
> For much of its history, the ADL has operated in the United States as if it were a hostile intelligence organization—which, in essence, it was. The organization’s spymaster was Irwin Suall, who from the 1960s to 1997 ran his nationwide network of agents and informants from the ADL’s New York City headquarters. As millions of dollars in donations flowed into the “civil rights” organization, tens of thousands of dollars flowed out to Suall’s clandestine operatives in the field, actively engaged in violating the civil rights of thousands of Americans. Among his agents was Roy Bullock, a beefy San Franciscan with the codename “Cal” who posed as a small-time art dealer in the Castro District and spied undercover in the US for the ADL. To hide the ADL’s involvement, Bullock’s payments were laundered through a Beverly Hills attorney who, Bullock would later tell authorities, never missed a payment in more than three decades. Bullock said he would submit his reports to the ADL’s executive director in San Francisco, Richard Hirschhaut, now the regional director of the American Jewish Committee for Los Angeles.
This supports the stated claim. You can dispute the facts in this citation, of course (I don’t take them as the gospel truth myself), but The Cradle didn’t cite it incorrectly.
Acting like a hostile intelligence agency != being a front for Israeli intelligence
1. The links to Israel are made elsewhere in The Nation article, I already copy-pasted more than I wanted to.
2. The Cradle didn’t say “being a front”, they said “functions as a [front]” which is equivalent to “acting like a” front.
Honestly, the word “functions” was the hyperlink to The Nation article. So surely you saw it?
I've followed The Cradle for a couple of years. For what it's worth I've been able to corroborate much of what is published against other sources, and I believe it's entirely funded by donations.
Rather biased against NATO and Israel, but I suppose that could be a good or bad thing depending on one's perspective.
https://theintercept.com/2025/09/13/marco-rubio-revoke-us-pa... / https://archive.is/ND49e
At lest The Intercept links to a page for the congressional hearing, but I don't know why they don't say which bill or amendment this is referring to.
It's in HR 5300.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5300...
SEC. 226. No passports for terrorists and traffickers.
I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-cradle-bias-and-credibili...
2. AllSides:
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cradle-media-bias
Thanks ChatGPT.
Edit: Parent edited their comment and added their sources.
Google, but you're welcome.
any AI by another name, would smell just as pungent.
It looked like AI slop, but if you click through, they’re actually quoting their sources verbatim. (No clue how the source compiles its ratings, however.)
In my defence, the sources were not mentioned in the comment when I made my reply, only the very LLM-looking text excerpts.
The Cradle is a pretty well respected analysis site, which is often referenced to by other independent journalists. Just as in the late 1930's-40's, most respected, independent journalists would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Nazism, similarly, most respected independent journalists today would have numerous headlines heavily critical of Zionism & Israel.
Case in point, the other comment referencing a headline "Israel & rape" from the Cradle. Well, that's because the Israeli's do have a mass campaign of both torture & rape on Palestinian prisoners/hostages. Which has been confirmed even by former State Dept officials. Not to mention OPEN ADMISSION of this policy, widely, across Israeli media & politics. Down to streaming the rapes live to HQ (one of which was the one that was leaked and went viral), and then openly glorifying the SELF-CONFESSING rapist live on TV.
None of the above is a sensationalising the truth. It's just a strict, verbatim recounting of the truth, as admitted to (in self glorifying terms) by the accused. So it's not a sign of bias. If the plain, unvarnished, completely verified truth feels like bias to anyone, that's not a commentary on the messenger. It's a commentary on the observer.
It's funny how people only question who owns an outlet when said outlet has the gall to report the truth.
You never see people question the gaff that garbage like VOA or NPR spit out on a daily basis.
(Also: look up '61% of israeli men'. That's what they're open to voluntarily admitting. You can only imagine how deep the rot goes inside that sick 'society'.)
Passport revocation of Paul Robeson https://www.nypl.org/events/exhibitions/galleries/selected-t...
Passport revocation of W.E.B. DuBois https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/when-civil-rights-were...
Passport revocation of William L. Patterson https://depts.washington.edu/moves/CRC_genocide.shtml
> A US congressman is introducing a bill that could potentially be used to deny US citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech, including for criticism of Israel, the Intercept reported on 13 September.
I'm pretty suspicious of the outlet, but even if it was the New York Times, no one should pay attention to this bill until there's some strong indication it may actually pass. Bonkers bills get introduced all the time and go nowhere. If you get worked up over them, you're wasting your energy.
this is a part if bigger package of bills to reform the Dept of State and give it more powers
I'm sorry, what? The Secretary of State is trying to subvert the first amendment and punish people for not supporting a genocidal foreign state by taking away his political opposition's ability to leave or enter the country.
It is downright preposterous to insinuate you can't be upset or demand accountability until after the authoritarian has all the votes and power they require and it's too late to do anything.
Proposing this alone should have Marc Rubio stripped of his position and blacklisted from office by public opinion. The fact it's not is a sign of how inept the American political system actually is.
ADL and AIPAC must be registered as foreign agents and closely monitored. They interfere in usa politics and elections much more than war criminal Putin ever did.
Is this revoking citizenship? Or just your passport?
Just passport, so revoking the right to travel to other countries.
would this lead to US citizens abroad be stuck and no ability to come back to US or travel anywhere?
US citizens don't need a passport to return. They'll grumble and make you wait, but you've the legal right to reenter the country.
That's not how it worked for W.E.B. Du Bois.
(there are multiple citation links in the comments here, I won't duplicate them)
> That's not how it worked for W.E.B. Du Bois.
Sure, but he died before black Americans could reliably vote.
Sounds like a time a significant percentage of Americans would have considered to be "great" and that they would like to make those things happen again. We know for a fact they aren't pushing for similar tax rates to when America was "great". So what exactly are they referring to? Not a single conservative in existence has been banned from social media because of their passion for debating tax rates. So what is it exactly that is getting conservatives banned?
We have to dance around this bullshit for some reason. Conservatives get kicked out of social media platforms for being outright hateful bigots. If people are getting "cancelled" for being "conservative" then you're admitting that conservative ideology is far more intrinsically tied to racism and xenophobia than it is balancing budgets which is something the Republican party hasn't been able to do for half a century at least. This is the "fuck your feelings" not the "budgets must be balanced" crowd after all.
I think what we're seeing here is that conservatives are learning how to weaponize "politically correct" language. It doesn't matter one bit how many conservatives not just online but elected fucking officials say terrible shit. They are quite happy to cheer on the assassination of elected Democrats and the assault of a Democratic senator's husband. They will make jokes about it just being a jilted gay lover and not the incredibly common right wing fucking nutbag that it so often ends up being. They, including Charlie Kirk, are on record calling for people like Joe Biden to be executed and we're just supposed to roll with it. But don't pay proper respects to a racist piece of shit being killed by the very thing he defended and suddenly they clutch their pearls to the point where they create databases to track folks not being properly saddened to get them "cancelled". To get cancelled from the left you have to be a sex pest or an abuser or an abject racist. But to get cancelled from the right you just have to post quotes from their dead heroes back to them.
Why is this flagged?
Flamebait politics, obviously.
what exactly is flame bait?
losing US passport seems like big deal that affects everyone in US
Wow, I just posted on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45251052) that I thought it was sad to live in a third world country where I have to get a passport to get a vaccine. Now the Nazis don't want me to be able to get a passport if I point out Israel appears to be committing war crimes.
Explain to me again how this makes America great?
Well that's concerning.
the Israelis have more freedom of speech than Amercians do
I've heard people across both reddit and HN claim that this violates 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article IV of the Constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Article IV (Privileges and Immunities Clause): The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states.
Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause): The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of liberty without being deprived of it without due process of law has also been cited by the Supreme Court as a basis for the right to travel, including international travel.
Ninth Amendment: This amendment protects certain fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, including the right to travel.
14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal treatment regardless of residency.
But I guess what really matters at the end of the day is what a judge interprets those laws to mean.
We don't even get that anymore. We get an unexplained shadow docket opinion overturning lower courts.
Or a self-contradictory opinion that is 5-4 in the first half, and 5-4 in the second half, but they’re almost entirely different 5-4s (and god knows how ACB was able to split the difference and sign on to both).
And somehow it’s the fault of the district courts if they can’t interpret this madness.
> The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states
How is this remotely relevant? Is this AI slop?
if you have the right to travel between internal states then there should be no reason you can't travel to other sovereign states.
Most importantly, no liberty of US citizens shall be limited without due process.
This bill would allow State Dept (neocons Marco Rubio who just traveled to Israel and met their prime minister) a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process, just through Marco Rubio’s discretion
> bill would allow State Dept…a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process
The bill absolutely presents due process issues, at least for American citizens. (Visas are more complicated.)
My point is the other references are hodgepodges of hallucinations.
> if you have the right to travel between internal states
The relevant cases are Corfield and Paul [1].
They restrict states. Not the federal government. And since 1926, “the presidential administration” has explicitly had the power to “deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time.”
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Un...
You are downvoted for... I can't figure it out.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45238520
[dead]
[flagged]
Let me guess, you include yourself in the list of smartest people in the world?
What part of my comment was wrong?
[flagged]