I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.
> In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American
colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from
Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus
in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun
and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding
obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary,
throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and
possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to
be any of the state’s business.
> The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did
not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion
of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide
effort to transform American law and politics through the lens
of evangelical Christianity.
> I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
Is there any example of colonial or early federal period governmental actions demanding that anyone make a record of all of their correspondence available for review to determine whether they had anti-American views? Even at the level of senate confirmations, did the standard of "we should be able to check that you never wrote anything which we view as unacceptable" ever turn up? Bear in mind that for years after the fight for independence, many of them lived in communities where they knew and interacted with former British loyalists, so this wasn't an idle concern.
I think a bunch of them were on record making very broad statements in defense of personal liberties, and a bunch of them had been accused by the crown of being treasonous based on stuff they had written, so one could understand them being _not_ on the same page of creating punishments for categories of speech.
> Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty
straightforwardly against the original spirit.
Is it? My understanding is anti-obscenity laws at the federal level in the US really go back to the Comstock act in the 1870s, i.e. the founders and multiple generations after them didn't attempt to ban porn. I think it's entirely consistent to believe that the founders didn't imagine that a government had any business making such stipulations.
>how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders?
By not pretending we can read the minds of the dead, not letting racist rapists dictate our society from beyond the grave and enforcing the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. This idea that the founding fathers are the sole source of truth is not only dangerously destructive, it's explicitly denied by the constitution itself. This doesn't violate the spirit of the first amendment as currently interpreted, it violates the first amendment.
What kind of country do we want? One that welcomes a broad set of views, and in turn ensures its future by not attaching itself to any single point of view dogmatically, or one where people use references to the founders to justify their insecure political choices?
I'm having a hard time thinking of any non-Europeans who would be interested in going to the US for education when European schools were closer and better. I'm having a harder time wondering why Madison et al. would care.
By "foreigner" do you include Native Americans? From what I gather, Harvard, Dartmouth, and other colonial era colleges nominally encouraged educating Native Americans, as part of their Christianization. There wasn't much of it, to be fair, but it was a stated goal. There were also schools like Moor's Indian Charity School.
By "foreigner" do you include the Black population? We know there were schools for black children, like the Williamsburg Bray School. From what little I know of slaveholder Madison, I don't think he was against free blacks getting an education.
Could you point to anything specific from Madison on this topic?
Many of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners. Their racism would most certainly have treated white-skinned European-descended Hamilton differently than a dark-skinned descendant of African parents, even if both were born in the Caribbean.
We have plenty of echoes of this today, like the birthers doubting Obama's citizenship. We all know why he was singled out for that one.
I'm not sure how an understanding of their racist beliefs translates into an endorsement to you.
Help me understand how you get from "the Founding Fathers held racist beliefs" to "those beliefs were good and I support them"?
1770s America saw Hamilton as European-American, not Caribbean-American. They'd have cared most about his skin color and lineage, not the physical location of the birth.
This is most certainly vetting against anti-Israel views. I know first hand that rich donors to the Trump campaigns (Adelsons and others) made Israel their top priority. They are seeking to control the narrative around this war, and are unable to do so with college-aged students that do not consume Facebook or Fox News media. It seems with everything else failing, they are resorting to vetting. Their concern is empathetic students coming into positions of power, which threatens the well-being of their darling (Israel). Among college aged students, Israel is viewed like Iran (and rightfully so, because the videos coming out of Ghaza are incompatible with western morals and values). America naturalized Trevor Noah during a Trump admin, who was critical of America on his show for 5 years. It seems Israel is where they draw the line, mainly because of the power some groups hold over the Trump admin (like every other admin frankly). In our country, you can criticize everything and everyone but free speech does not include a criticism of the darling of most of America's billionaires
> how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders
Jesus christ. Don't you feel at all obligated to provide support for the thing you're "pretty sure" about before asking people to accept it at face value? Based on your surety? It's hard to tell if this is basic rage-baiting with the absurdity of your claim sans support, or if you truly believe that wild claims don't require any, because enough people's reactionary vibes align with yours.
Frankly, who cares what the founders as slave owning dead men think?
They were right about the first amendment but were wrong about a bunch of other things.
Don’t forget that the first amendment isn’t the only amendment. America didn’t even achieve equitable civil rights until the last half decade or so. Within living memory women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts without spousal consent.
This idea that we should go back to the original ideas thought up before industrialized society was invented is super weird.
I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.