> In a press release, Lopez says "this is a move so perverse, so grotesque as to defy explanation. Preventing people from entering the country because their friends critiqued the U.S. on social media shows an astounding disregard for the principle of free speech. The idea that Ajjawi should be prevented from taking his place at Harvard because of his own political speech would be alarming; that he should be denied this opportunity based on the speech of others is downright lawless."
I would replace the terms used by Lopez, from "astounding disregard for the principle of free speech" to "astounding disregard for the principle of justice". (Which, I rant, has been devastated in many places in the past 18 months.)
Theoretically, though, I understand from some publications that there is an ongoing debate in national security agencies about the thresholds to be observed between false positives and false negatives. Meaning: not that the authorities believed such judgement sensible or fair, but they probably delegated their sense of fairness to a top-down mandate of "better safe than sorry". Which, in the encouraged alienation from good sense, creates these monstrosities.
I would replace the terms used by Lopez, from "astounding disregard for the principle of free speech" to "astounding disregard for the principle of justice". (Which, I rant, has been devastated in many places in the past 18 months.)
Theoretically, though, I understand from some publications that there is an ongoing debate in national security agencies about the thresholds to be observed between false positives and false negatives. Meaning: not that the authorities believed such judgement sensible or fair, but they probably delegated their sense of fairness to a top-down mandate of "better safe than sorry". Which, in the encouraged alienation from good sense, creates these monstrosities.