6 ms·

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors. > You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes. Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior? Sure, there are limits on free speech. You aren't allowed to freely slander people, to engage in false advertising, to commit fraud, treason, etc. But a new law that specifically prevents a company from showing you a selection of videos on fears that this selection might be biased in a way that influences people is another level. It not only prevents them from speaking directly, it specifically bans them because of how they might choose which legal speech they might show you. I completely understand why people want to do it. Allowing foreign adversaries this much influence is dangerous. But it is also unprecedented, and because of the indirection feels like a heavier restriction than say banning a Chinese newspaper from publishing in the US.

karaterobot 3y ago
I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business or a private citizen shouting on a street corner.
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think. This case wouldn't have that problem.
    - aprilthird2021 3y ago
      Why would it not? It's regulating the flow of protected speech materials, exactly the same as in the precedent case...
      - cryptonector 3y ago
        In the precedent the U.S. government was clearly trying to find the names of Americans interested in foreign propaganda. Here the U.S. government is trying to stop ownership by foreign adversaries of social media operating in the U.S. That's clearly a significant distinction.
        aprilthird2021 3y ago
        Did you read the actual case? It established that under the 1st amendment is a right to receive information and ideas. That established precedent is clearly at odds with the government trying to ban a source of information and ideas in the US.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/ From the main opinion (as opposed to Brennan's concurrence; the court was unanimous): > We conclude that the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. As stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 437 (dissenting): > We do not have here, any more than we had in Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, any question concerning the extent to which Congress may classify the mail and fix the charges for its carriage. Nor do we reach the question whether the standard here applied could pass constitutional muster. Nor do we deal with the right of Customs to inspect material from abroad for contraband. We rest on the narrow ground that the addressee, in order to receive his mail, must request in writing that it be delivered. This amounts, in our judgment, to an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him. This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect, especially as respects those who have sensitive positions. You might be confused because Brennan says what you say the court said in his concurrence, but that nothing in his concurrence is dicta. The controlling opinion lays out the dicta, and it says what I wrote, as you can see from the quotes.
- beej71 3y ago
  I see it as related to the app store. Will I be allowed to run a site that distributes the TikTok app? Or is the government restricting me from doing that?
cryptonector 3y ago
The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't have the right to not be deported, and you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only. It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.
- esoterica 3y ago
  If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Yes, a government is generally in charge of granting citizenship for the population which it represents. This is a mechanism that seems to work for every functioning country in the world. What's the alternative you're suggesting, exactly?
    - esoterica 3y ago
      I don’t know why you are arguing against a phantom position. I never said the government doesn’t grant citizenship.
      - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
        As an external observer, I believe you are arguing in bad faith on this subject. Just my 2c.

karaterobot 3y ago

I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business or a private citizen shouting on a street corner.

aprilthird2021 3y ago
Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think. This case wouldn't have that problem.
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    Why would it not? It's regulating the flow of protected speech materials, exactly the same as in the precedent case...
    - cryptonector 3y ago
      In the precedent the U.S. government was clearly trying to find the names of Americans interested in foreign propaganda. Here the U.S. government is trying to stop ownership by foreign adversaries of social media operating in the U.S. That's clearly a significant distinction.
      - aprilthird2021 3y ago
        Did you read the actual case? It established that under the 1st amendment is a right to receive information and ideas. That established precedent is clearly at odds with the government trying to ban a source of information and ideas in the US.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/ From the main opinion (as opposed to Brennan's concurrence; the court was unanimous): > We conclude that the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. As stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 437 (dissenting): > We do not have here, any more than we had in Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, any question concerning the extent to which Congress may classify the mail and fix the charges for its carriage. Nor do we reach the question whether the standard here applied could pass constitutional muster. Nor do we deal with the right of Customs to inspect material from abroad for contraband. We rest on the narrow ground that the addressee, in order to receive his mail, must request in writing that it be delivered. This amounts, in our judgment, to an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him. This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect, especially as respects those who have sensitive positions. You might be confused because Brennan says what you say the court said in his concurrence, but that nothing in his concurrence is dicta. The controlling opinion lays out the dicta, and it says what I wrote, as you can see from the quotes.
beej71 3y ago
I see it as related to the app store. Will I be allowed to run a site that distributes the TikTok app? Or is the government restricting me from doing that?

cryptonector 3y ago

The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't have the right to not be deported, and you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only. It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.

esoterica 3y ago
If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Yes, a government is generally in charge of granting citizenship for the population which it represents. This is a mechanism that seems to work for every functioning country in the world. What's the alternative you're suggesting, exactly?
  - esoterica 3y ago
    I don’t know why you are arguing against a phantom position. I never said the government doesn’t grant citizenship.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      As an external observer, I believe you are arguing in bad faith on this subject. Just my 2c.