4 ms·

I dont understand the argument that it would hurt first amendment rights. There are so many alternatives, reels, shorts, twitter and reddit have their own versi

I dont understand the argument that it would hurt first amendment rights. There are so many alternatives, reels, shorts, twitter and reddit have their own version. Thats like saying banning facebook messenger hurts first amendment rights. It doesnt, I can simply use another app that is the exact same thing.

PebblesRox 4y ago
But there is a lot of information currently on TikTok that would be rendered inaccessible to you if it was banned. It is both a medium and a source/repository of content.
paxys 4y ago
"Why does banning 1984 hurt first amendment rights? There are so many other books you can read."
- ameminator 4y ago
  Banning TikTok, which can be seen as a tool for the Chinese government to actively collect data in real time about American citizens, and a static book like 1984, is absolutely not the same.
  - paxys 4y ago
    Plenty of books are seen as foreign propaganda tools. In some cases they explicitly are that. This still doesn't give the government the right to ban them.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      There's a world of difference between a writing which may have "dangerous ideas" (in someone's opinion), and a communications tool which actively spies on its users.
      - hot_gril 4y ago
        > a communications tool which actively spies on its users Google, Facebook, etc all do that, and it's their entire business model.
        midoridensha 4y ago
        Yeah, so what? The OP was comparing these things to banning books. What's your point?
        hot_gril 4y ago
        My point is there's something wrong with targeting TikTok for "spying." I wouldn't compare this to banning books.
    - smt88 4y ago
      > This still doesn't give the government the right to ban them. The government has a long history of regulating the transmission of speech. The First Amendment protects us against them regulating the content of speech. For example, campaign finance laws dictate who can fund speech in certain situations, but they don't dictate what a candidate actually says. That said, the First Amendment is limited by "compelling government interest," so there are no absolutes. We are, as we have been for a few centuries, at the mercy of the whims of the Supreme Court. There are no absolutes, and the Supreme Court can interpret anything however they want.
    - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      If there was a book that told the Chinese government about me when I read it I would want that book banned.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    It's not the same, but it shows why the argument that "there are alternatives" doesn't hold water.
- smt88 4y ago
  > "Why does banning 1984 hurt first amendment rights? There are so many other books you can read." Banning 1984 would violate the First Amendment because it would be banning a certain point of view. Banning TikTok is about preventing a foreign government from owning an information pipeline, not about the point of view that's being pushed on it. Anyway, all the people who claim to be concerned about the First Amendment should be marching in the streets over what's happening in Florida, not trying to save TikTok.
  - harshreality 4y ago
    Florida? I wouldn't worry about it. Things like blogger registration and anything else that affects adults won't survive even a preliminary court challenge. It's just DeSantis trying to brand himself.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- yadaeno 4y ago
  The difference is banning content vs banning a medium. Its like if there was an e-reader that sat in your living room spying on you, but it displayed books for free. Banning that device is not the same as banning content itself.
mc32 4y ago
Yeah, if it were a 1A issue, they'd have been all over Twitter 1.0 and Facebook 1.0 when they were censoring proponents of Lab escape theory and Ivermectin and so many other issues where they were kind of looking down at their feet whistling. I don't think they are about civil liberties in general any more. It's more they advocate for some civil liberties they currently support.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  A private company regulating the private speech on its privately owned social network is not a First Amendment issue. In fact it is precisely the sort of thing that the First Amendment exists to protect. Facebook and Twitter are not constrained by the First Amendment. The First Amendment exists as an umbrella under which they can do whatever they want. In this case the federal government (which is constrained by the First Amendment) is the one proposing to ban an app—entirely. That is most definitely a First Amendment issue.
programmarchy 4y ago
So then banning the speech of one individual doesn’t harm first amendment rights. Because another individual could say the exact same thing.
hot_gril 4y ago
I disagree with a TikTok ban, but I don't see why 1A is the reason like ACLU claims.

PebblesRox 4y ago

But there is a lot of information currently on TikTok that would be rendered inaccessible to you if it was banned. It is both a medium and a source/repository of content.

paxys 4y ago

"Why does banning 1984 hurt first amendment rights? There are so many other books you can read."

ameminator 4y ago
Banning TikTok, which can be seen as a tool for the Chinese government to actively collect data in real time about American citizens, and a static book like 1984, is absolutely not the same.
- paxys 4y ago
  Plenty of books are seen as foreign propaganda tools. In some cases they explicitly are that. This still doesn't give the government the right to ban them.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    There's a world of difference between a writing which may have "dangerous ideas" (in someone's opinion), and a communications tool which actively spies on its users.
    - hot_gril 4y ago
      > a communications tool which actively spies on its users Google, Facebook, etc all do that, and it's their entire business model.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Yeah, so what? The OP was comparing these things to banning books. What's your point?
        hot_gril 4y ago
        My point is there's something wrong with targeting TikTok for "spying." I wouldn't compare this to banning books.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > This still doesn't give the government the right to ban them. The government has a long history of regulating the transmission of speech. The First Amendment protects us against them regulating the content of speech. For example, campaign finance laws dictate who can fund speech in certain situations, but they don't dictate what a candidate actually says. That said, the First Amendment is limited by "compelling government interest," so there are no absolutes. We are, as we have been for a few centuries, at the mercy of the whims of the Supreme Court. There are no absolutes, and the Supreme Court can interpret anything however they want.
  - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    If there was a book that told the Chinese government about me when I read it I would want that book banned.
- nhchris 4y ago
  It's not the same, but it shows why the argument that "there are alternatives" doesn't hold water.
smt88 4y ago
> "Why does banning 1984 hurt first amendment rights? There are so many other books you can read." Banning 1984 would violate the First Amendment because it would be banning a certain point of view. Banning TikTok is about preventing a foreign government from owning an information pipeline, not about the point of view that's being pushed on it. Anyway, all the people who claim to be concerned about the First Amendment should be marching in the streets over what's happening in Florida, not trying to save TikTok.
- harshreality 4y ago
  Florida? I wouldn't worry about it. Things like blogger registration and anything else that affects adults won't survive even a preliminary court challenge. It's just DeSantis trying to brand himself.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
yadaeno 4y ago
The difference is banning content vs banning a medium. Its like if there was an e-reader that sat in your living room spying on you, but it displayed books for free. Banning that device is not the same as banning content itself.

mc32 4y ago

Yeah, if it were a 1A issue, they'd have been all over Twitter 1.0 and Facebook 1.0 when they were censoring proponents of Lab escape theory and Ivermectin and so many other issues where they were kind of looking down at their feet whistling. I don't think they are about civil liberties in general any more. It's more they advocate for some civil liberties they currently support.

snowwrestler 4y ago
A private company regulating the private speech on its privately owned social network is not a First Amendment issue. In fact it is precisely the sort of thing that the First Amendment exists to protect. Facebook and Twitter are not constrained by the First Amendment. The First Amendment exists as an umbrella under which they can do whatever they want. In this case the federal government (which is constrained by the First Amendment) is the one proposing to ban an app—entirely. That is most definitely a First Amendment issue.

programmarchy 4y ago

So then banning the speech of one individual doesn’t harm first amendment rights. Because another individual could say the exact same thing.

hot_gril 4y ago

I disagree with a TikTok ban, but I don't see why 1A is the reason like ACLU claims.