3 ms·
Practically unheard of. It's usually tiptoed around by wording laws in such a way that they only apply to one company. Compare, for example, the recent Arkansas
by duskwuff 4y ago
Practically unheard of. It's usually tiptoed around by wording laws in such a way that they only apply to one company. Compare, for example, the recent Arkansas bill[1] banning some social media services, which effectively exempts TikTok by making an exception for any "social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment".
For that matter, it's unclear if it's even constitutional. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution flatly prohibits bills of attainder (laws which declare a specific person guilty of a crime and/or subject them to punishments). It's undecided whether this clause extends to corporations or only to natural persons, but the possibility is enough.
[1]: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FSB396.pdf https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBil...
- jasonhansel 4y agoYeah, I understand passing a law that is intentionally designed to apply to only one company. But it's odd for a law to just name the company.
- duskwuff 4y agoParticularly when the entire intent of the law is to declare the company guilty of a variety of offenses and force them to cease operations. It feels like a massive overstep into the responsibilities of the judicial branch -- and one which isn't even based on any specific laws or legal principles.