6 ms·

I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy l

I don't know if you get to have it both ways without trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights as well as those of their users unless you pass data privacy laws for US citizens/persons (which might have first amendment implications anyway) and deal with WeChat through whatever mechanisms this newly-passed (and yet-to-be created) privacy law contains. So either WeChat, Facebook, and whoever can facilitate protected speech among their users (in this case you're protecting the users specifically) or the various platforms are treated as publishers which still wouldn't allow the US government to prevent or compel speech (protecting the organization). It's possible they can get away with banning the payment portions of the app but the outright ban appears to be prior restraint of free speech by the government.

wvenable 6y ago
> trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights As a non-American, my question is why does WeChat have first amendment rights? It's not an American company.
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  American citizens that use WeChat have first amendment rights
  - leric 6y ago
    What about WeChat censoring your speech, is 1st amendment okay with that?
    - bigpumpkin 6y ago
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Note the subject. So yes, the First Amendment is okay with any censoring of information by a foreign government or company.
      - y2kenny 6y ago
        UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I don't see any mention of government there. Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? How do you reconcile ideologically or philosophically that it is not ok for US Congress to limit speech but ok for other powerful entities?
        pishpash 6y ago
        > Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? Because that's literally what the grandparent asked. You appear to have a completely different question.
  - leric 6y ago
    But they can't exercise the right with this tool.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      Sure they can. They communicate using it. They have rights.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Yes. The supreme court has found consistently that pretty much anywhere the constitution says "people", it refers to all people regardless of citizenship, given that it also calls out "citizens" in many places.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    >> why does WeChat have first amendment rights? > Yes. We might also observe that the only mention of "people" in the first amendment gives them the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Freedoms of speech and the press are phrased as restrictions on Congress, not as rights given to anyone (and this is probably the main justification for extending first amendment rights to foreigners, which appears to be a popular but not universal viewpoint).
  - justanotheranon 6y ago
    Julian Assange's right to Free Speech has been denied. of Free Speech is arbitrarily granted, then it's not free speech, and that violates Prior Restraint, at least, if the Courts are not also arbitrarily deciding who's free speech deserves to be protected.
- Zak 6y ago
  The bill of rights treats rights as existing in morality (whether based on natural law philosophy or religion) prior to and outside of written law. It does not purport to grant rights, but to prohibit the government from violating them. In that framework, the US government is not to violate anyone's freedom of speech anywhere in the world. That doesn't seem to be what's at issue in this case though; the case was brought by a group of US-based WeChat users on grounds that the ban would restrict their freedom to communicate with people in China who are unable to use other communication services.
- mitfahrener 6y ago
  Trampling on WeChat users' first amendment rights would be a violation. Many of the users are American citizens, like myself. I'd like to talk to my grandparents and cousins in China. They don't or can't use other social networks, so WeChat it is.
ReptileMan 6y ago
I am not sure it is 1A issue to begin with. US prohibiting US companies to work with overseas entities is commercial problem. A lot of gambling websites were shut down by court order and a lot of domains seized by FBI. So there is a lot of precedents about restricting US citizens access to foreign parts of the internet.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Well isn't that convenient? Whenever it's a commercial problem it cannot be a speech problem, according to you.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    Not at all. But in this case they attack the apps not the speech on them. Otherwise gambling sites will be immune if they have IRC chat running.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      You can shut down anything with sufficient justification, the issues is this app is primarily for speech and the bar is correspondingly high. It would be the same if it were a newspaper or a conference, rather than a casino, where surely speech also takes place.

wvenable 6y ago

> trampling on WeChat's first amendment rights As a non-American, my question is why does WeChat have first amendment rights? It's not an American company.

bigpumpkin 6y ago
American citizens that use WeChat have first amendment rights
- leric 6y ago
  What about WeChat censoring your speech, is 1st amendment okay with that?
  - bigpumpkin 6y ago
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Note the subject. So yes, the First Amendment is okay with any censoring of information by a foreign government or company.
    - y2kenny 6y ago
      UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I don't see any mention of government there. Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? How do you reconcile ideologically or philosophically that it is not ok for US Congress to limit speech but ok for other powerful entities?
      - pishpash 6y ago
        > Why limit the interpretation of free speech to the US constitution? Because that's literally what the grandparent asked. You appear to have a completely different question.
- leric 6y ago
  But they can't exercise the right with this tool.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Sure they can. They communicate using it. They have rights.
monocasa 6y ago
Yes. The supreme court has found consistently that pretty much anywhere the constitution says "people", it refers to all people regardless of citizenship, given that it also calls out "citizens" in many places.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  >> why does WeChat have first amendment rights? > Yes. We might also observe that the only mention of "people" in the first amendment gives them the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Freedoms of speech and the press are phrased as restrictions on Congress, not as rights given to anyone (and this is probably the main justification for extending first amendment rights to foreigners, which appears to be a popular but not universal viewpoint).
- justanotheranon 6y ago
  Julian Assange's right to Free Speech has been denied. of Free Speech is arbitrarily granted, then it's not free speech, and that violates Prior Restraint, at least, if the Courts are not also arbitrarily deciding who's free speech deserves to be protected.
Zak 6y ago
The bill of rights treats rights as existing in morality (whether based on natural law philosophy or religion) prior to and outside of written law. It does not purport to grant rights, but to prohibit the government from violating them. In that framework, the US government is not to violate anyone's freedom of speech anywhere in the world. That doesn't seem to be what's at issue in this case though; the case was brought by a group of US-based WeChat users on grounds that the ban would restrict their freedom to communicate with people in China who are unable to use other communication services.
mitfahrener 6y ago
Trampling on WeChat users' first amendment rights would be a violation. Many of the users are American citizens, like myself. I'd like to talk to my grandparents and cousins in China. They don't or can't use other social networks, so WeChat it is.

ReptileMan 6y ago

I am not sure it is 1A issue to begin with. US prohibiting US companies to work with overseas entities is commercial problem. A lot of gambling websites were shut down by court order and a lot of domains seized by FBI. So there is a lot of precedents about restricting US citizens access to foreign parts of the internet.

pishpash 6y ago
Well isn't that convenient? Whenever it's a commercial problem it cannot be a speech problem, according to you.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  Not at all. But in this case they attack the apps not the speech on them. Otherwise gambling sites will be immune if they have IRC chat running.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    You can shut down anything with sufficient justification, the issues is this app is primarily for speech and the bar is correspondingly high. It would be the same if it were a newspaper or a conference, rather than a casino, where surely speech also takes place.