This is alarming considering many people have multiple handles. Anonymous speech is a major reason America exists[1] and is a constitutional right[2]:
>In Watkins v. United States (1957), NAACP v. Alabama (1958), Bates v. Little Rock (1960), and Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963), the Court protected the anonymity of members of controversial groups to ensure their First Amendment right of association.
Imagine a visitor has handles not tied to their real name. (Maybe they don't feel comfortable criticizing their government under their real name)
Should the visitor be forced to list these sensitive identifies in order to enter America?
Keep in mind that lying to border officials is pretty much always a reason to be permanently barred from any country.
I hope our allies lead by example and don't respond in kind - I'd hate to have to get turned away at the Peace Bridge because I wouldn't lie and wouldn't endanger my privacy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/32/anonymous-speech
>In Watkins v. United States (1957), NAACP v. Alabama (1958), Bates v. Little Rock (1960), and Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963), the Court protected the anonymity of members of controversial groups to ensure their First Amendment right of association.
Imagine a visitor has handles not tied to their real name. (Maybe they don't feel comfortable criticizing their government under their real name)
Should the visitor be forced to list these sensitive identifies in order to enter America?
Keep in mind that lying to border officials is pretty much always a reason to be permanently barred from any country.
I hope our allies lead by example and don't respond in kind - I'd hate to have to get turned away at the Peace Bridge because I wouldn't lie and wouldn't endanger my privacy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/32/anonymous-speech