4 ms·

> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system

> Also TikTok hasn't violated US laws, then where is the case for banning them? Banning something that is perfectly legal seems absurd to do in our legal system. Cuban cigars haven't broken any laws. Iranian ceramics haven't broken any laws. The power to sanction / embargo is a very well established power of the government, and it doesn't require a trial. China has long been in violation of the Trafficking in Persons report[1] and, more recently, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act[2]. Violation of the TIP report especially gives a very strong precedent for trade sanctions. TikTok has been described as a national security threat multiple times by multiple political leaders. You may disagree with that designation, but the resulting ban itself is strongly supported by law and precedent. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_Persons_Report [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Human_Rights_Policy_Act

colejohnson66 6y ago
Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they actually do employ US citizens in a US office. There’s also the fact that the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but that seems to be ignored nowadays.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? This action is obviously not a bill of attainder: 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. 1) The action was not taken by the legislature, 2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime, 3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For example, a law that says "It's illegal to be Bill Bryson" is an Bill of attainder, and is forbidden by the constitution. That does not apply on a number of levels. 1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill. 2) this ban does not declare tik tok illegal (It's not clear what it even means for a product to be against the law). 3) The department of Commerce has a long history of... regulating commerce. It's what it does. If this kind of trade regulation was indeed unconstitutional, someone would have noticed by now.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    The executive powers do not come from nothing; the legislature has delegated certain of its powers to the executive branch. In order to be banned from being imported, in the form of downloads, TikTok would have to be a threat to national security (the government said how yet, but they don't have to until trial) or involved in terrorism (the government has not argued this). They have to make a reasonable case as to how this is not simply banning speech they do not like. It's also not clear whether a download is actually an importation, or whether the Department of Commerce has any bearing on a US company (Google) manufacturing new copies of a product based on a foreign design. (The Huawei case is far from decided!) As for your third point: Someone did notice, and filed a lawsuit in federal court! This is an article about the ongoings about that case.

colejohnson66 6y ago

Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? [a] And before the “ByteDance isn’t American, so the Constitution doesn’t apply” argument, they actually do employ US citizens in a US office. There’s also the fact that the Constitution doesn’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, but that seems to be ignored nowadays.

ardy42 6y ago
> Your argument boils down to: they can be banned, so because “national security,” it’s ok. China may be violating laws, but TikTok isn’t, so singling them out is a bill of attainder, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.[a] If they’re violating any laws, then why aren’t we being told anything but national security? This action is obviously not a bill of attainder: 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. 1) The action was not taken by the legislature, 2) I do not believe it declares TikTok to be "guilty" of any crime, 3) I'm sure the district court judge knows what a bill of attainder is, would have said so if this was one.
dahfizz 6y ago
The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For example, a law that says "It's illegal to be Bill Bryson" is an Bill of attainder, and is forbidden by the constitution. That does not apply on a number of levels. 1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill. 2) this ban does not declare tik tok illegal (It's not clear what it even means for a product to be against the law). 3) The department of Commerce has a long history of... regulating commerce. It's what it does. If this kind of trade regulation was indeed unconstitutional, someone would have noticed by now.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  The executive powers do not come from nothing; the legislature has delegated certain of its powers to the executive branch. In order to be banned from being imported, in the form of downloads, TikTok would have to be a threat to national security (the government said how yet, but they don't have to until trial) or involved in terrorism (the government has not argued this). They have to make a reasonable case as to how this is not simply banning speech they do not like. It's also not clear whether a download is actually an importation, or whether the Department of Commerce has any bearing on a US company (Google) manufacturing new copies of a product based on a foreign design. (The Huawei case is far from decided!) As for your third point: Someone did notice, and filed a lawsuit in federal court! This is an article about the ongoings about that case.