> 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

> 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.