---
title: "Matthew Ainslie "The Constitution does not protect anyone but..."
date: 2025-01-19
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Matthew Ainslie's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYPEeBBood7QrNDYCXWAAAysjhp4ZPjs7xL5lDXg5px4-HxguSFS5QS4t2vOeUn8c6lm4Z2j612x-EglePIkOJalhOYknno2v_qNBJxXYNcJQUAGzzjbEa1YiZnylXPst79hpgaSihbIBiVdNpUbEqsyag99mN7bzAUzheiM-Vdl6hW7AAqHPAlBP6BbGfSahaSlrVd7-uU&s=519"
---

# Matthew Ainslie "The Constitution does not protect anyone but...

*January 19, 2025 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Matthew Ainslie's comment.*

Matthew Ainslie "The Constitution does not protect anyone but Americans, so it's perfectly legitimate to prevent the CCP from secretly pushing its views, fomenting discord and spying on us. " Protect?  Seems to me you want to censor what I can see and hear against my will.  Do you not remember when the government used similar "national security" arguments to censor so-called "Russian propaganda"?  Or censor so-called insurrectionists (up to the President of the US)? "I meant it's content-neutral as far as Americans are concerned; " Congratulations, here's your gold medal for mental gymnastics! "it's not as if Congress were trying to force BlueSky to be sold to Elon Musk." No, it's Congress trying to force Tiktok to be sold to some other company under US  domination. Have you considered that US citizens might want to hear Chinese "propaganda" that can't be bought by US lobbyists?  That we might want to hear from companies that don't have strong ties to the US military / spy agencies?