5 ms·

I'm far from understanding the legal complexity, but one analogy I consider here is what it'd be like to ban a particular brand or country of origin of pens, or

I'm far from understanding the legal complexity, but one analogy I consider here is what it'd be like to ban a particular brand or country of origin of pens, or cellphones, or routers. Those things are definitely used for speech, and banning them all would likely be an issue. But banning a brand of pens because you don't trust the chemicals in them as safe or routers because you're concerned about potential spy ware, seems reasonable. In that sense, TikTok is just one of many alternatives and if the motivation isn't to regulate speech, it feels like it could fit with other bans that seem reasonable to me. I'd assume the claim here would be that it presents national security risk, though of course I think that's probably not why the ban is really happening, and it makes sense for it to be challenged.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>. But banning a brand of pens because you don't trust the chemicals in them as safe or routers because you're concerned about potential spy ware, seems reasonable. Banning the pen is legitimate as knowingly harming people is a crime. Banning the router isn't the same. At most they are guilty of false advertising, and even that can probably be made legal in the license provided. Besides, I may have reasons to want a router with spyware on it. The same would apply to TikTok, but I think they're trying to say it's also "aiding our enemies" making it akin to a light form of treason.
badrabbit 6y ago
> I'd assume the claim here would be that it presents national security risk, though of course I think that's probably not why the ban is really happening, and it makes sense for it to be challenged. Yeah, but they lack the authority. National security does not override anyone's rights. They don't get to do this regardless if their intent. This sets a precedent where if they can claim any entity is a national security risk they can restrict communication with that entitiy. Totalitarian regimes do this exact thing when they ban certain social media or VPNs! It's diffrent from banning a brand of pens because you're banning commercial activity and the danger is a chemical not speech. Here you're sayiny speech itself is too dangerous to be allowed. A clear line preventing the government from doing this for a reason.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>. But banning a brand of pens because you don't trust the chemicals in them as safe or routers because you're concerned about potential spy ware, seems reasonable. Banning the pen is legitimate as knowingly harming people is a crime. Banning the router isn't the same. At most they are guilty of false advertising, and even that can probably be made legal in the license provided. Besides, I may have reasons to want a router with spyware on it. The same would apply to TikTok, but I think they're trying to say it's also "aiding our enemies" making it akin to a light form of treason.

badrabbit 6y ago

> I'd assume the claim here would be that it presents national security risk, though of course I think that's probably not why the ban is really happening, and it makes sense for it to be challenged. Yeah, but they lack the authority. National security does not override anyone's rights. They don't get to do this regardless if their intent. This sets a precedent where if they can claim any entity is a national security risk they can restrict communication with that entitiy. Totalitarian regimes do this exact thing when they ban certain social media or VPNs! It's diffrent from banning a brand of pens because you're banning commercial activity and the danger is a chemical not speech. Here you're sayiny speech itself is too dangerous to be allowed. A clear line preventing the government from doing this for a reason.