5 ms·
I think that exceptions like tik tok can be safely excised by naming the organization in legislation. No generalizations to draw from legislation that picks on
by ouid 4y ago
I think that exceptions like tik tok can be safely excised by naming the organization in legislation. No generalizations to draw from legislation that picks on tiktok by name
- kneebonian 4y agoBut that's no longer rule by law that's rule by mob outrage or by the security apparatus depending on who you believe wants TikTok banned. Is it really appropriate to give the government the power to arbitrarily name certain companies to no longer exist or operate within the US because the government said so? How long before this power is used against Parler or some other company because people don't like it. Or WikiLeaks or other sources of inconvenience and upset to the those running things? Should 4chan be allowed to exist?
- ouid 4y ago>Is it really appropriate to give the government the power to arbitrarily name certain companies to no longer exist or operate within the US because the government said so? Absolutely. The mandate of the government is granted by the people. Congress acts with respect to specific businesses all the time. Especially to their benefit.
- Spivak 4y agoThe generalization is that such legislation is constitutional if allowed to be enforced. Then nothing prevents another bill from coming through.
- bdw5204 4y agoLegislation that picks on a specific person by name (remember under US law, a corporation is a "person") is called a "bill of attainder"[0] and is explicitly banned by Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution because it was one of the practices of the British government that the 13 colonies were revolting over. It is also banned by all 50 state constitutions. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder