Sounds like ones demands have changed, or atleast they got a hold of themselves. whatever lead to them walking back on this, it’s the end of another battle for internet privacy, but not the end of the war. As apps continue to track you in new mysterious ways behind their closed sourced software, and the governments continue to crack down on encryption. Anonymous names are important for privacy too.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but is that true? Extremely skeptical of this:
But if the American government doesn’t have the right to impinge on the free speech of their citizens, they don’t have the right to do so to foreigners either regardless of whether their governments are an active threat.
It’s not like non-citizens enjoy all the rights of citizens. Why would non-citizens living in a foreign country enjoy the free speech rights of US citizens?
Technically anyone entering the country is awarded the same rights and freedoms (such as given in the bill of rights ) regardless of whether they enter legally or illegally. But anyone outside the borders of the US is not subject to the laws or government oversight of the US Government (with the exception of citizens traveling or living in other countries). So yes. Technically yes. True.
I’ll try to find a source.
Edit:
"In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including “aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful.”
" But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy."
