7 ms·

It sometimes seems that the US has currently a vulnerability in how it applies the first amendment that perhaps wasn't always there historically.

throwaway4good 3y ago
But not as big as its vulnerability to stupid and populist politicians.
foldr 3y ago
There are lots of similar historical cases: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcase...
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  My impression is that extending first amendment rights to in a way foreign entities is a bit different, but I could be wrong.
  - foldr 3y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying that free speech in the US was more under threat than previously.
  - WrongAssumption 3y ago
    The first amendment is not a right the government grants anybody. It's a restriction on the power of the government. "Congress shall make no law..." This is no accident. This is so the government cannot decide who is and isn't deserving of free speech. Citizen or not.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Are the laws around secrets (public or private) all unconstitutional then?
roenxi 3y ago
Generally or in this specific case? Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. Similarly, TikTok is allowed to say what it feels is appropriate even if the US government disagrees. If the US polity thinks this is a mistake, they're going to have to persuade their fellows instead of clubbing them into submission. In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing. Compromising either of those principles gives a clear in to some people about as evil and even more capable than the Chinese intelligence agencies.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  I am not sure that extending the first amendment to what could be foreign adversaries isn't a bit different from a domestic application of the first amendment. I don't know enough of the history, but, for example, did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan enjoy first amendment rights during WWII in the US? Was that a "thing"?
  - causi 3y ago
    Ostensibly the United States Constitution does not grant rights, but only recognizes natural rights, therefore in theory they should apply to any living human, not just Americans.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    If you examine the core of that argument you realise that the theory underlying it is that US citizens are more truthful than foreigners. That is a belief that is profoundly at stake with liberal ideals. Not the modern ones, but the whole free-speech-be-good principle. There is absolutely no reason that foreigners should be denied free speech. The point of speech is the more of it happens before we act, the better the results. There is no race or national aspect to that. If Us citizens would listen to foreigners from time to time they might waste less time killing them. I mean, help us all the whole non-English-speaking world doesn't have to be as US enemy. The Chinese are suspicious but they are actually pretty responsible in terms of how they act. People can listen to them and profit from it. Maybe copy some of their ideas around how to run Shenzhen and the other industrial districts. Or, as mentioned, the trade-not-bomb approach to securing oil. Take the USSR. Did it help the USSR citizens if their government stopped them listening to the US? No. And the US remains to this day a staunch enemy of the USSR remnants.
bmitc 3y ago
It isn't clear to me how this is a first amendment issue. If the federals are concerned, maybe they should actually do something instead of progressing into extremism and leaving it completely to states to rule but then stepping in when they do? Social media is a wild west of unregulated harm being bestowed upon children and adults. In addition, all of them are indeed national security threats. The district judge's explanations seem naive. And TikTok's reasoning shows misunderstanding as well. The first amendment guarantees free speech, not the transmission of free speech through the medium of TikTok.
- pavlov 3y ago
  TikTok Inc. is a US corporation. You can't make a law that limits the speech of just one company, any more than you can make a law that targets a single individual by name in general. So the restrictions would have to be more generic yet narrow enough that they only hit TikTok in practice. The administration of Florida had this problem recently when they wanted to punish Disney for criticism, but couldn't write that into law. They ended up with a law that includes a set of criteria which combined leave Disney as the only affected party. In this case, they'd presumably want to come up with criteria that cover TikTok but exclude Meta, Google and X. It's not very easy because the actual products and audiences are very similar. The foreign ownership angle is the one they should be looking at, IMO.
  - benreesman 3y ago
    I’m not weighing in on the right or wrong of people using TikTok or where, but let’s not fuck around on ByteDance being the social media arm of the PRC? I did years at IG, we knew who we were competing with.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Sure. I have no illusions about TikTok. But constitutionally they can't be targeted just because "everyone knows who they are." It's an American corporation on paper, employs thousands of people in the US, and must be treated equally. AFAIK, the legal structure includes several parent companies in the Caymans (TikTok Inc. in America is owned by TikTok Ltd in the Caymans, which is owned by ByteDance also registered in the Caymans but controlled by Chinese interests - maybe via some Singapore routing too, I forget). Legislators probably need to do their homework to find the smoking gun in that structure.
dist-epoch 3y ago
Nassim Taleb talks a lot about this. How extremists are using free speech to undermine democracy and turn the West into an authoritarian regime. "The Jihadi next door" is a good documentary exemplifying this, how ISIS supporters in UK are using UK's freedom of expression to recruit people for ISIS while openly stating in public in front of the police "the ISIS flag will be flown over 10 Downing street and UK will implement Sharia law". https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/20/jihadis-next-door-review-channel-4-isis-abu-rumaysah https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/20/jihadis... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w
- hypeatei 3y ago
  The UK doesn't have freedom of speech or expression. > sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...
ThinkBeat 3y ago
Freedom of speech comes at a price. It always has and it always will. Not the "We gotta go bomb XXX country rooha, because they hate of for our freedom" It is easy to fix. but by then the system is autocratic and freedom of speech is dead. And the US is well on its way there.

throwaway4good 3y ago

But not as big as its vulnerability to stupid and populist politicians.

foldr 3y ago

There are lots of similar historical cases: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcase...

RandomLensman 3y ago
My impression is that extending first amendment rights to in a way foreign entities is a bit different, but I could be wrong.
- foldr 3y ago
  Ah, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying that free speech in the US was more under threat than previously.
- WrongAssumption 3y ago
  The first amendment is not a right the government grants anybody. It's a restriction on the power of the government. "Congress shall make no law..." This is no accident. This is so the government cannot decide who is and isn't deserving of free speech. Citizen or not.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Are the laws around secrets (public or private) all unconstitutional then?

roenxi 3y ago

Generally or in this specific case? Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. Similarly, TikTok is allowed to say what it feels is appropriate even if the US government disagrees. If the US polity thinks this is a mistake, they're going to have to persuade their fellows instead of clubbing them into submission. In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing. Compromising either of those principles gives a clear in to some people about as evil and even more capable than the Chinese intelligence agencies.

RandomLensman 3y ago
I am not sure that extending the first amendment to what could be foreign adversaries isn't a bit different from a domestic application of the first amendment. I don't know enough of the history, but, for example, did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan enjoy first amendment rights during WWII in the US? Was that a "thing"?
- causi 3y ago
  Ostensibly the United States Constitution does not grant rights, but only recognizes natural rights, therefore in theory they should apply to any living human, not just Americans.
- roenxi 3y ago
  If you examine the core of that argument you realise that the theory underlying it is that US citizens are more truthful than foreigners. That is a belief that is profoundly at stake with liberal ideals. Not the modern ones, but the whole free-speech-be-good principle. There is absolutely no reason that foreigners should be denied free speech. The point of speech is the more of it happens before we act, the better the results. There is no race or national aspect to that. If Us citizens would listen to foreigners from time to time they might waste less time killing them. I mean, help us all the whole non-English-speaking world doesn't have to be as US enemy. The Chinese are suspicious but they are actually pretty responsible in terms of how they act. People can listen to them and profit from it. Maybe copy some of their ideas around how to run Shenzhen and the other industrial districts. Or, as mentioned, the trade-not-bomb approach to securing oil. Take the USSR. Did it help the USSR citizens if their government stopped them listening to the US? No. And the US remains to this day a staunch enemy of the USSR remnants.

bmitc 3y ago

It isn't clear to me how this is a first amendment issue. If the federals are concerned, maybe they should actually do something instead of progressing into extremism and leaving it completely to states to rule but then stepping in when they do? Social media is a wild west of unregulated harm being bestowed upon children and adults. In addition, all of them are indeed national security threats. The district judge's explanations seem naive. And TikTok's reasoning shows misunderstanding as well. The first amendment guarantees free speech, not the transmission of free speech through the medium of TikTok.

pavlov 3y ago
TikTok Inc. is a US corporation. You can't make a law that limits the speech of just one company, any more than you can make a law that targets a single individual by name in general. So the restrictions would have to be more generic yet narrow enough that they only hit TikTok in practice. The administration of Florida had this problem recently when they wanted to punish Disney for criticism, but couldn't write that into law. They ended up with a law that includes a set of criteria which combined leave Disney as the only affected party. In this case, they'd presumably want to come up with criteria that cover TikTok but exclude Meta, Google and X. It's not very easy because the actual products and audiences are very similar. The foreign ownership angle is the one they should be looking at, IMO.
- benreesman 3y ago
  I’m not weighing in on the right or wrong of people using TikTok or where, but let’s not fuck around on ByteDance being the social media arm of the PRC? I did years at IG, we knew who we were competing with.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Sure. I have no illusions about TikTok. But constitutionally they can't be targeted just because "everyone knows who they are." It's an American corporation on paper, employs thousands of people in the US, and must be treated equally. AFAIK, the legal structure includes several parent companies in the Caymans (TikTok Inc. in America is owned by TikTok Ltd in the Caymans, which is owned by ByteDance also registered in the Caymans but controlled by Chinese interests - maybe via some Singapore routing too, I forget). Legislators probably need to do their homework to find the smoking gun in that structure.

dist-epoch 3y ago

Nassim Taleb talks a lot about this. How extremists are using free speech to undermine democracy and turn the West into an authoritarian regime. "The Jihadi next door" is a good documentary exemplifying this, how ISIS supporters in UK are using UK's freedom of expression to recruit people for ISIS while openly stating in public in front of the police "the ISIS flag will be flown over 10 Downing street and UK will implement Sharia law". https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/20/jihadis-next-door-review-channel-4-isis-abu-rumaysah https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/20/jihadis... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w

hypeatei 3y ago
The UK doesn't have freedom of speech or expression. > sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...

ThinkBeat 3y ago

Freedom of speech comes at a price. It always has and it always will. Not the "We gotta go bomb XXX country rooha, because they hate of for our freedom" It is easy to fix. but by then the system is autocratic and freedom of speech is dead. And the US is well on its way there.