4 ms·

The press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment. Are you saying Bytedance is the press? It seems clear to me that any company hiding behind Section

The press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment. Are you saying Bytedance is the press? It seems clear to me that any company hiding behind Section 230 neutrality cannot also claim to be a member of the press.

fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
TikTok doesn’t need to be part of the press, it just needs be composed of humans protected by the First Amendment, the same way the NYT is composed of humans protected by the First Amendment. Same logic applies to every part of the first amendment: 1. Can government ban the Episcopal Church as long as they don’t prosecute individual members of if? 2. Can government ban Ruthless Records from selling the song “Fuck the Police”?
- cheriot 3y ago
  I think "press" can include companies. How would you define a member of the press? Banning a church seems like a different topic, but I would say banning a newspaper violates the First Amendment. I'm old enough to remember the radio version of "Fuck the Police" because playing the song was banned.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    The freedom of the press is the freedom to print (“press”) and distribute writing. Just like freedom of speech, it can possibly be pursued by an individual, but the first amendment also protects groups of people acting together in corporate form. The government can easily engage in tyranny if it’s able to squash groups of people who dissent together.
    - cheriot 3y ago
      TikTok, like any other product with user driven content is using Section 230 to disavow responsibility for the content on their app. If it's not TikTok's speech how can they claim the first amendment? The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        > The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever. This is something you have to argue, not something that you can just declare. And the "just as easily" is where you're going to run into a problem.
        cheriot 3y ago
        I mean, short form video is available on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and those are just the ones I know about. How is having one less option impacting someone's ability to speak? "People use a product to speak therefor the product cannot be regulated" is not a claim I'd heard before the TikTok debate. Seems to contradict previous interpretations of the first amendment that allowed the regulation of cable, TV broadcast, and radio.
pessimizer 3y ago
The press isn't designated by law anywhere but dictatorships (where you have to be licensed to be a legitimate journalist.) The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through.
- cheriot 3y ago
  > The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through. So everyone is the press and any product used to speak cannot be regulated? This country has regulated TV broadcast and radio for longer than I've been alive so that's a pretty big change.

fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago

TikTok doesn’t need to be part of the press, it just needs be composed of humans protected by the First Amendment, the same way the NYT is composed of humans protected by the First Amendment. Same logic applies to every part of the first amendment: 1. Can government ban the Episcopal Church as long as they don’t prosecute individual members of if? 2. Can government ban Ruthless Records from selling the song “Fuck the Police”?

cheriot 3y ago
I think "press" can include companies. How would you define a member of the press? Banning a church seems like a different topic, but I would say banning a newspaper violates the First Amendment. I'm old enough to remember the radio version of "Fuck the Police" because playing the song was banned.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
  The freedom of the press is the freedom to print (“press”) and distribute writing. Just like freedom of speech, it can possibly be pursued by an individual, but the first amendment also protects groups of people acting together in corporate form. The government can easily engage in tyranny if it’s able to squash groups of people who dissent together.
  - cheriot 3y ago
    TikTok, like any other product with user driven content is using Section 230 to disavow responsibility for the content on their app. If it's not TikTok's speech how can they claim the first amendment? The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      > The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever. This is something you have to argue, not something that you can just declare. And the "just as easily" is where you're going to run into a problem.
      - cheriot 3y ago
        I mean, short form video is available on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and those are just the ones I know about. How is having one less option impacting someone's ability to speak? "People use a product to speak therefor the product cannot be regulated" is not a claim I'd heard before the TikTok debate. Seems to contradict previous interpretations of the first amendment that allowed the regulation of cable, TV broadcast, and radio.

pessimizer 3y ago

The press isn't designated by law anywhere but dictatorships (where you have to be licensed to be a legitimate journalist.) The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through.

cheriot 3y ago
> The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through. So everyone is the press and any product used to speak cannot be regulated? This country has regulated TV broadcast and radio for longer than I've been alive so that's a pretty big change.