14 ms·

Banning a speech app should trigger strict judicial scrutiny for first amendment infringement in the same way that banning a newspaper would: 1. Is it necessar

Banning a speech app should trigger strict judicial scrutiny for first amendment infringement in the same way that banning a newspaper would: 1. Is it necessary to a "compelling state interest"? Maybe they are CCP surveillance apps, but that needs be shown in court, not merely asserted. 2. Is it "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose? This seems narrowly tailored to two apps. 3. Does it use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose? Like demanding that they change the apps rather than banning them.

nickff 6y ago
That test (strict scrutiny) is applied by a court reviewing the action; US courts generally don't provide advisory opinions.
dheera 6y ago
PSA: If you have an Android phone, you can download WeChat directly from wechat.com. You don't need to go through the Google Play store because your OS supports your freedom to some degree to install whatever you want on hardware that you OWN. If you have an iPhone, sorry that your phone company's CEO is pretty much a dictator and is complicit in restricting the freedom of Americans.
- zaksoup 6y ago
  How come the argument "you can just buy an android phone" doesn't apply to iOS users in the same way "you can just sideload an APK" does to Google play store users? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious about how people think of these distinctions.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    For one thing, buying a new phone, buying all your apps again for a different app store, and transferring all your data isn't a trivial task. Sideloading is free.
  - Navarr 6y ago
    sunk cost fallacy. If you have an iPhone you're probably deep into the Apple ecosystem and migrating to another platform is painful.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      Money spent on apps you don't use anymore may be "sunk costs". Likewise, money spent on apps with an equivalent, free alternative on Android. Resistance due to money (and effort) that would need to be spent to migrate to Android is not the sunk cost fallacy.
  - darkhelmet 6y ago
    Technically, you can on an iPhone too, just not for free and not anywhere near as conveniently. There were various tools in circulation while there were no decent Jailbreaks. One that springs to mind was iReSign - according to its github page it's for re-signing app bundles with enterprise keys, but that's not what it was used for back then. People captured the .ipa files and signed them with developer keys and all sorts of unfortunate things happened after that. TL;DR: "sideloading" for iOS = Free: no. Convenient: no. Possible: yes. Out of reach of most people: absolutely yes.
  - Udik 6y ago
    Uh? I'm not sure I understand your question. The argument doesn't apply because we're talking about the quality of the phone, not the generic freedom of its users. Of course the users are free to use a different phone. Actually, they might be forced to because the phone they bought will refuse to do what they ask it to. Which sucks.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Because the former requires replacing everthing else on the phone and the phone itself, whereas the latter, as far as I can tell, has no negative effects beyond the sideloaded APK possibly being malicious, ie no negative effects artificially imposed by the phone maker.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    Personally, it's a bit like if I purchased a Mercedes but found that I could only drive it on certain pre-approved roads, subject to varying partnerships and licensing agreements. Someone telling me, "you can just buy a scooter" seems predicated on the assertion that they both belong in the same category of "means of transportation," but ignores the fact that they operate very differently in several ways. It also ignores the fact that I've paid for the Mercedes (and possibly invested time and money into skills and tools to repair it), and can't necessarily recoup those costs. Fundamentally, it ignores whether freedom of movement should be infringed in such a way. One can currently sideload an APK on Android, but what's stopping Google from taking the same hard line as Apple? Note: I am using the hyperbolic analogy above for rhetorical reasons; I don't think Android phones are perfectly analogous to a scooter. We use Android at work precisely because of Apple's lockdowns, and while I actually like the OS well enough I think I would find it frustrating on a personal phone.
    - Udik 6y ago
      The message you're replying to argues that a car that refuses to go on certain roads is exactly equivalent to a car that does, because its owners are free to buy the other car. This is a complete non-sequitur, and I am surprised someone is debating it seriously.
    - underwater 6y ago
      Cars have less built in switching costs than phones. You can only have one phone at a time and there is an entire ecosystem of services and apps are carried forward when you buy a new one. A better metaphor might be renting a home. Imagine if you could only fill it with furniture and appliances that have been approved, and you can only park certain types of cars in the garage. You could always move, but then you have to buy new everything.
  - ummwhat 6y ago
    You don't have to "jailbreak" your Android because it wasnt in jail to begin with. Sideloading works straight out of the box.
    - xorcist 6y ago
      You do need to turn off signature checking in the security settings, so not completely out of the box. Given that the application store can be changed to blacklist a certain app, it is not unlikely that the next step is similar changes to the apk installer. It should also be noted that there are no guarantees that signature checking is optional in all future builds of Android. While there are differences between the iPhone and Android business models, they should also not be overstated. My personal guess is that they will drift closer over time rather than farther apart.
- jjcon 6y ago
  You can side load on iOS - quit spreading misinformation
  - netsharc 6y ago
    Care to provide a URL? Or well, I looked it up and this is 1 way: https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sideload-any-app-game-into-iphone-ipad-works-with-latest-ios-no-jailbreak-is-required/ https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sidel... It's a hacky workaround that needs "maintenance" every 7 days, but I guess you can call it "You can side load on iOS"
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Use altstore - it doesn't require jailbreak or maintenance. It autorenews your certs for you and you can even add alternate store sources to increase the apps available in the store. I have a bunch of apps sideloaded and they work great. Regardless, the point is you can sideload.
- castratikron 6y ago
  They should GPL the app. Play the PGP card and print the source in a book.
  - coolspot 6y ago
    That would not help iOS users.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
> Maybe they are CCP surveillance apps, but that needs be shown in court, not merely asserted. If TikTok sued the US government under this theory, the government might need to make the argument in court to defend the lawsuit. There’s no requirement for the government to preemptively make a showing in court before it does everything.
- chromedev 6y ago
  Why would that not be abused as a means of political oppression? You could just sue your opponents and it would be guilty until proven innocent.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
    Suing and the associated guilty until proven innocent threat absolutely are abused in politics and in every day life.
tuna-piano 6y ago
Good points. It's crazy the level of power I'm learning our executive branch has... Government is dangerous without checks and balances.
- xnx 6y ago
  Much of government was designed with expectations of certain norms being followed that are now being violated. There are a lot of checks and balances (e.g. impeachment) that could be executed if a branch of the government was willing to cooperate.
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    Checks and balances all break down in the presence of ideologically aligned parties. Its a miracle its lasted this long, but it was inevitable.
- js2 6y ago
  > There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Addre...
- ponker 6y ago
  TikTok is nothing... Donald Trump has the unilateral authority to launch a nuclear strike on any target at any time. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
CWuestefeld 6y ago
This seems narrowly tailored to two apps. Doesn't that make it a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.
- peter303 6y ago
  That part of the Constitution applies to Congress. They can not single out individuals (or individual corporations by Amendment 14) for punishment by legislation. Punishment is the role of a court trial.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  >is an act of a legislature Seems pretty clear that this does not apply to actions of the commerce department because they are not a legislature. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. Even if Congress issued this ban, Congress has the explicit right to regulate commerce in the constitution. Trade embargo and sanctions are a very well established power of the government and does not include "declaring a person or group of people guilty of some crime".
  - ardy42 6y ago
    Also this kind of action may intersect with constitutional foreign policy powers, which I think are far less familiar to regular people than other constitutional concepts from the Bill of Rights, etc.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      The Bill of Rights limits Constitutional foreign policy powers.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    the commerce department because they are not a legislature The Commerce Department operates as a proxy for Congress. They were set up to fully codify and implement the broader regulations enacted by Congress. Congress can't create a proxy that has the power to do things that the Congress itself doesn't have the power to do itself. If you want to pretend that this isn't being done under the aegis of Congress but rather the Executive, you're going to have to point to me the enumerated power that gives that branch the power to regulate commerce at all. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. That's the same legal silliness that our law enforcement folks like to use to justify asset forfeiture. I was under the impression that the consensus around here is that it's BS.
didibus 6y ago
How does that apply to all other economic Sanctions? Like the sanctions on Cuba? If Cuba made a product that can arguably "enable free speech", would it be able to bypass sanctions?
- rudolph9 6y ago
  We’re not banning all trade with a particular national, we’re banning a particular app from a nation we import more from (in terms of dollars as of 2019) than any other nation. This kind of unilateral decision strikes me as short sighted and more politically motivated than anything.
  - didibus 6y ago
    Not all sanctions ban all trade, and a lot of them are targetted at a whole nation. And they are always politically motivated. Now I have no clue if this particular sanction is warrented, or if it'll have negative impact, etc. So maybe it is short cited, maybe it's not. I'm just saying apart from the higher profiles being sanctioned here, this seems similar to a lot of other sanctions.
    - rudolph9 6y ago
      Can you name some examples of other sanctions it’s similar to?
      - didibus 6y ago
        For example, ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is sanctioned by the US, so it cannot participate in business transactions with any American company. Another one is Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. an oil company from Venezuela. You can read more about it here: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-s... The important bit is this: > The U.S. sanctions countries that sponsor terrorism or perpetrate human rights violations on their people. The U.S. can sanction an entire nation or specific individuals or entities within that nation.
SoylentYellow 6y ago
I am focusing on WeChat only with this comment. It is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive. Narrowly tailored means the law must be precisely written to minimize the 1st Amendment impact. In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. There is no practical alternative to WeChat as all other similar apps are banned in China, so this order is extremely restrictive.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  Can you provide a solution that has less 1A impact about Chinese app ran on Chinese servers? I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication with anything less than a ban on some level.
  - TheDong 6y ago
    Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Issue a public notice to citizens that any wechat communications may be known by the chinese government. If there's an actual national security issue with private citizens using the app, they should air it and give it a chance to be addressed, or succeed in court on its merits. > I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication Frankly, that shouldn't be a goal of the us government for private citizens. The us government can protect government communications all it wants, but private citizens should be free to use chinese services if they want. I know someone learning chinese in an american college, and one of their resources is using weibo (a chinese twitter clone basically, definitely hosted on chinese servers). If US private citizens using wechat is "china intercepting us communication", than this person using weibo and emailing chinese students to learn would count too, right? It seems like a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and the justification seems very flimsy, at best.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      The issue is not strictly limited to 1A issues or concern over intercepted communications, though. There's a much larger elephant in the room: a social media app, wildly popular with easily influenced young people, that the Chinese Communist Party has, effectively, editorial control over. That's, imo, the most concerning issue here. Imagine what you could do with this power. (I ask that question a bit tongue in cheek, because we should also be asking it of Facebook/Twitter/Google et al.)
quantum_state 6y ago
As apps become more and more integrated part of people’s live and livelihood, it becomes very pressing to have collective voice of app users across the globe to deal with arbitrary bullies from governments ...
Animats 6y ago
Which is what the ACLU is saying.[1] "Selectively banning entire platforms violates the First Amendment and harms freedom of speech online." Expect a lawsuit in days, if not hours. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-wechat/ https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-we...
- Natsu 6y ago
  I tend to agree with them here, but the thing that always gets me is how many people will support these same actions if, instead of being done by the elected government, they're done by unelected internet companies that hold monopoly power. I get why that may be more of a problem legally, but not why so many people agree with it morally, because they come from people not otherwise inclined to agree with the proposition that a monpolist's business decisions are somehow above scrutiny.
  - simplify 6y ago
    That's definitely a concern, but the more pressing concern is allowing the government to hold this power – something I think we can all agree shouldn't be allowed (without due process).
  - fspeech 6y ago
    Because first amendment is to limit government power. Private companies are not obliged to give you right to free speech. In theory private companies compete against each other but government has a monopoly on legalized violence.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      Yes, that's the legal claim. What's the moral claim?
      - TheMblabla 6y ago
        TikTok takes down content it doesn't like on a regular basis. It's pretty well known if you use tiktok. Not saying they shouldn't be able to do that, its part of how they got their For You page so popular. Whether a website wants to display tiktok or not is the same thing - it'll do whatever it thinks will get more users.
djaque 6y ago
It's also worth noting that at least for TikTok, its audience is young and left leaning. It is wildly popular with young people. It was where individuals organized buying up tickets to Trump rallies to inflate expectations during the pandemic [1], something which is known to have angered Trump. Something as targeted as this ban seems like Trump deplatforming his critics under the excuse of national security. Plus, it's happening right before the election. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-tulsa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...
ThomPete 6y ago
I dont think you have to show that in court if its national interest then all you need is congressional approval no? You cant have a court hearing on intelligence information or am i missing sonething?

nickff 6y ago

That test (strict scrutiny) is applied by a court reviewing the action; US courts generally don't provide advisory opinions.

dheera 6y ago

PSA: If you have an Android phone, you can download WeChat directly from wechat.com. You don't need to go through the Google Play store because your OS supports your freedom to some degree to install whatever you want on hardware that you OWN. If you have an iPhone, sorry that your phone company's CEO is pretty much a dictator and is complicit in restricting the freedom of Americans.

zaksoup 6y ago
How come the argument "you can just buy an android phone" doesn't apply to iOS users in the same way "you can just sideload an APK" does to Google play store users? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious about how people think of these distinctions.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  For one thing, buying a new phone, buying all your apps again for a different app store, and transferring all your data isn't a trivial task. Sideloading is free.
- Navarr 6y ago
  sunk cost fallacy. If you have an iPhone you're probably deep into the Apple ecosystem and migrating to another platform is painful.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Money spent on apps you don't use anymore may be "sunk costs". Likewise, money spent on apps with an equivalent, free alternative on Android. Resistance due to money (and effort) that would need to be spent to migrate to Android is not the sunk cost fallacy.
- darkhelmet 6y ago
  Technically, you can on an iPhone too, just not for free and not anywhere near as conveniently. There were various tools in circulation while there were no decent Jailbreaks. One that springs to mind was iReSign - according to its github page it's for re-signing app bundles with enterprise keys, but that's not what it was used for back then. People captured the .ipa files and signed them with developer keys and all sorts of unfortunate things happened after that. TL;DR: "sideloading" for iOS = Free: no. Convenient: no. Possible: yes. Out of reach of most people: absolutely yes.
- Udik 6y ago
  Uh? I'm not sure I understand your question. The argument doesn't apply because we're talking about the quality of the phone, not the generic freedom of its users. Of course the users are free to use a different phone. Actually, they might be forced to because the phone they bought will refuse to do what they ask it to. Which sucks.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Because the former requires replacing everthing else on the phone and the phone itself, whereas the latter, as far as I can tell, has no negative effects beyond the sideloaded APK possibly being malicious, ie no negative effects artificially imposed by the phone maker.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Personally, it's a bit like if I purchased a Mercedes but found that I could only drive it on certain pre-approved roads, subject to varying partnerships and licensing agreements. Someone telling me, "you can just buy a scooter" seems predicated on the assertion that they both belong in the same category of "means of transportation," but ignores the fact that they operate very differently in several ways. It also ignores the fact that I've paid for the Mercedes (and possibly invested time and money into skills and tools to repair it), and can't necessarily recoup those costs. Fundamentally, it ignores whether freedom of movement should be infringed in such a way. One can currently sideload an APK on Android, but what's stopping Google from taking the same hard line as Apple? Note: I am using the hyperbolic analogy above for rhetorical reasons; I don't think Android phones are perfectly analogous to a scooter. We use Android at work precisely because of Apple's lockdowns, and while I actually like the OS well enough I think I would find it frustrating on a personal phone.
  - Udik 6y ago
    The message you're replying to argues that a car that refuses to go on certain roads is exactly equivalent to a car that does, because its owners are free to buy the other car. This is a complete non-sequitur, and I am surprised someone is debating it seriously.
  - underwater 6y ago
    Cars have less built in switching costs than phones. You can only have one phone at a time and there is an entire ecosystem of services and apps are carried forward when you buy a new one. A better metaphor might be renting a home. Imagine if you could only fill it with furniture and appliances that have been approved, and you can only park certain types of cars in the garage. You could always move, but then you have to buy new everything.
- ummwhat 6y ago
  You don't have to "jailbreak" your Android because it wasnt in jail to begin with. Sideloading works straight out of the box.
  - xorcist 6y ago
    You do need to turn off signature checking in the security settings, so not completely out of the box. Given that the application store can be changed to blacklist a certain app, it is not unlikely that the next step is similar changes to the apk installer. It should also be noted that there are no guarantees that signature checking is optional in all future builds of Android. While there are differences between the iPhone and Android business models, they should also not be overstated. My personal guess is that they will drift closer over time rather than farther apart.
jjcon 6y ago
You can side load on iOS - quit spreading misinformation
- netsharc 6y ago
  Care to provide a URL? Or well, I looked it up and this is 1 way: https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sideload-any-app-game-into-iphone-ipad-works-with-latest-ios-no-jailbreak-is-required/ https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sidel... It's a hacky workaround that needs "maintenance" every 7 days, but I guess you can call it "You can side load on iOS"
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Use altstore - it doesn't require jailbreak or maintenance. It autorenews your certs for you and you can even add alternate store sources to increase the apps available in the store. I have a bunch of apps sideloaded and they work great. Regardless, the point is you can sideload.
castratikron 6y ago
They should GPL the app. Play the PGP card and print the source in a book.
- coolspot 6y ago
  That would not help iOS users.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

> Maybe they are CCP surveillance apps, but that needs be shown in court, not merely asserted. If TikTok sued the US government under this theory, the government might need to make the argument in court to defend the lawsuit. There’s no requirement for the government to preemptively make a showing in court before it does everything.

chromedev 6y ago
Why would that not be abused as a means of political oppression? You could just sue your opponents and it would be guilty until proven innocent.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  Suing and the associated guilty until proven innocent threat absolutely are abused in politics and in every day life.

tuna-piano 6y ago

Good points. It's crazy the level of power I'm learning our executive branch has... Government is dangerous without checks and balances.

xnx 6y ago
Much of government was designed with expectations of certain norms being followed that are now being violated. There are a lot of checks and balances (e.g. impeachment) that could be executed if a branch of the government was willing to cooperate.
- kazagistar 6y ago
  Checks and balances all break down in the presence of ideologically aligned parties. Its a miracle its lasted this long, but it was inevitable.
js2 6y ago
> There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Addre...
ponker 6y ago
TikTok is nothing... Donald Trump has the unilateral authority to launch a nuclear strike on any target at any time. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

CWuestefeld 6y ago

This seems narrowly tailored to two apps. Doesn't that make it a Bill of Attainder, which is unconstitutional? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.

peter303 6y ago
That part of the Constitution applies to Congress. They can not single out individuals (or individual corporations by Amendment 14) for punishment by legislation. Punishment is the role of a court trial.
dahfizz 6y ago
>is an act of a legislature Seems pretty clear that this does not apply to actions of the commerce department because they are not a legislature. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. Even if Congress issued this ban, Congress has the explicit right to regulate commerce in the constitution. Trade embargo and sanctions are a very well established power of the government and does not include "declaring a person or group of people guilty of some crime".
- ardy42 6y ago
  Also this kind of action may intersect with constitutional foreign policy powers, which I think are far less familiar to regular people than other constitutional concepts from the Bill of Rights, etc.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    The Bill of Rights limits Constitutional foreign policy powers.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  the commerce department because they are not a legislature The Commerce Department operates as a proxy for Congress. They were set up to fully codify and implement the broader regulations enacted by Congress. Congress can't create a proxy that has the power to do things that the Congress itself doesn't have the power to do itself. If you want to pretend that this isn't being done under the aegis of Congress but rather the Executive, you're going to have to point to me the enumerated power that gives that branch the power to regulate commerce at all. They are not finding China / the apps guilty of a crime or punishing them for that crime. That's the same legal silliness that our law enforcement folks like to use to justify asset forfeiture. I was under the impression that the consensus around here is that it's BS.

didibus 6y ago

How does that apply to all other economic Sanctions? Like the sanctions on Cuba? If Cuba made a product that can arguably "enable free speech", would it be able to bypass sanctions?

rudolph9 6y ago
We’re not banning all trade with a particular national, we’re banning a particular app from a nation we import more from (in terms of dollars as of 2019) than any other nation. This kind of unilateral decision strikes me as short sighted and more politically motivated than anything.
- didibus 6y ago
  Not all sanctions ban all trade, and a lot of them are targetted at a whole nation. And they are always politically motivated. Now I have no clue if this particular sanction is warrented, or if it'll have negative impact, etc. So maybe it is short cited, maybe it's not. I'm just saying apart from the higher profiles being sanctioned here, this seems similar to a lot of other sanctions.
  - rudolph9 6y ago
    Can you name some examples of other sanctions it’s similar to?
    - didibus 6y ago
      For example, ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION is sanctioned by the US, so it cannot participate in business transactions with any American company. Another one is Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. an oil company from Venezuela. You can read more about it here: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-sanctioned-by-the-u.s.---and-why.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/countries-s... The important bit is this: > The U.S. sanctions countries that sponsor terrorism or perpetrate human rights violations on their people. The U.S. can sanction an entire nation or specific individuals or entities within that nation.

SoylentYellow 6y ago

I am focusing on WeChat only with this comment. It is not narrowly tailored or least restrictive. Narrowly tailored means the law must be precisely written to minimize the 1st Amendment impact. In this case, this order prevents millions of Americans from using their primary (and oftentimes only) method to communicate with family in China. There is no practical alternative to WeChat as all other similar apps are banned in China, so this order is extremely restrictive.

ReptileMan 6y ago
Can you provide a solution that has less 1A impact about Chinese app ran on Chinese servers? I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication with anything less than a ban on some level.
- TheDong 6y ago
  Yeah, I can provide an alternative solution: ban its use within the government for sensitive uses, but allow its use by citizens. Issue a public notice to citizens that any wechat communications may be known by the chinese government. If there's an actual national security issue with private citizens using the app, they should air it and give it a chance to be addressed, or succeed in court on its merits. > I don't think that USG could achieve the goals of Chinese not being able to intercept US communication Frankly, that shouldn't be a goal of the us government for private citizens. The us government can protect government communications all it wants, but private citizens should be free to use chinese services if they want. I know someone learning chinese in an american college, and one of their resources is using weibo (a chinese twitter clone basically, definitely hosted on chinese servers). If US private citizens using wechat is "china intercepting us communication", than this person using weibo and emailing chinese students to learn would count too, right? It seems like a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and the justification seems very flimsy, at best.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    The issue is not strictly limited to 1A issues or concern over intercepted communications, though. There's a much larger elephant in the room: a social media app, wildly popular with easily influenced young people, that the Chinese Communist Party has, effectively, editorial control over. That's, imo, the most concerning issue here. Imagine what you could do with this power. (I ask that question a bit tongue in cheek, because we should also be asking it of Facebook/Twitter/Google et al.)

quantum_state 6y ago

As apps become more and more integrated part of people’s live and livelihood, it becomes very pressing to have collective voice of app users across the globe to deal with arbitrary bullies from governments ...

Animats 6y ago

Which is what the ACLU is saying.[1] "Selectively banning entire platforms violates the First Amendment and harms freedom of speech online." Expect a lawsuit in days, if not hours. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-wechat/ https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-we...

Natsu 6y ago
I tend to agree with them here, but the thing that always gets me is how many people will support these same actions if, instead of being done by the elected government, they're done by unelected internet companies that hold monopoly power. I get why that may be more of a problem legally, but not why so many people agree with it morally, because they come from people not otherwise inclined to agree with the proposition that a monpolist's business decisions are somehow above scrutiny.
- simplify 6y ago
  That's definitely a concern, but the more pressing concern is allowing the government to hold this power – something I think we can all agree shouldn't be allowed (without due process).
- fspeech 6y ago
  Because first amendment is to limit government power. Private companies are not obliged to give you right to free speech. In theory private companies compete against each other but government has a monopoly on legalized violence.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Yes, that's the legal claim. What's the moral claim?
    - TheMblabla 6y ago
      TikTok takes down content it doesn't like on a regular basis. It's pretty well known if you use tiktok. Not saying they shouldn't be able to do that, its part of how they got their For You page so popular. Whether a website wants to display tiktok or not is the same thing - it'll do whatever it thinks will get more users.

djaque 6y ago

It's also worth noting that at least for TikTok, its audience is young and left leaning. It is wildly popular with young people. It was where individuals organized buying up tickets to Trump rallies to inflate expectations during the pandemic [1], something which is known to have angered Trump. Something as targeted as this ban seems like Trump deplatforming his critics under the excuse of national security. Plus, it's happening right before the election. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-tulsa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...

ThomPete 6y ago

I dont think you have to show that in court if its national interest then all you need is congressional approval no? You cant have a court hearing on intelligence information or am i missing sonething?