Federal Judge Upholds State Department Rule Requiring Visa Applicants to Disclose Social Media Information
www.eff.org
Since 2019, people applying for a visa to the United States have had to register their social media accounts with the U.S. government as part of the application process. Two U.S.-based documentary film organizations that regularly collaborate with non-U.S. filmmakers and other international...

Summary

  • A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a rule that requires visa applicants to disclose their social media accounts to the U.S. government.

  • The rule, which went into effect in 2019, applies to visa applicants from all countries.

  • The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, two U.S.-based documentary film organizations, argued that the rule violated the First Amendment rights of visa applicants.

  • It's unclear if the plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling.

Additional Details

  • The rule requires visa applicants to disclose their social media identifiers, including pseudonymous accounts, for the past five years.

  • The plaintiffs argued that the rule would chill free speech and association, as visa applicants would be less likely to express themselves on social media if they knew that the government could see their posts.

  • The ruling is a reminder of the challenges faced by people who want to protect their privacy online.

  • ikiru@lemmy.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn, this is absolutely terrible. I never heard this before.

    Does this also apply to people applying for US citizenship?

    • Raisin8659@monyet.cc
      ·
      1 year ago

      This article specifically addresses Visa applications. So, if the person is already applying for a citizenship, there is most likely already a residency which doesn't require Visa on entry. There also seems to be a different set of rules for people already in the country. From the article:

      And while the court recognized the First Amendment rights of noncitizens currently present in the United States who limit their online speech because they may need to renew a visa in the future, it held that the federal government’s regulation of immigration should be granted significant deference.

      • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is all pointless technicality.

        Whichever person in charge or agency, merely requiring any human being to disclose such information is odious. It's literally 1984 made real.

        It doesn't matter that it happens in the US and how, but the fact that it's even a thing in this country says a lot about the kind of "democracy" it has.

      • sovietknuckles [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the same logic permitting enhanced interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, that being unconstitutional is fine as long as it's not on US soil?

        • Raisin8659@monyet.cc
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seems more or less. Have you seen the recent news about US government's arrangement to have an eastern European country running a platform to collect data on its own citizens to skirt around the warrant law? If citizens are being treated as such, how are non-citizens being treated?