5 ms·

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want, including whatever is on Tik Tok. This is covered by the first amendment.

xdennis 3y ago
It's not the information that's banned, it's TikTok. People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content, they fear the power that an enemy nation has over their citizens. It's not a free speech issue. Imagine if a company developed a new form of paper and published many books on it. If the paper turns out to be toxic and is banned, the company can't then say "oh, no, we're being censured". It has nothing to do with the message.
- Miner49er 3y ago
  The courts can look at the effect of the ban, not just the intention. If the effect is that it ends up limiting Americans' access to information (which it would, unless ByteDance gave in and sold) then a court could find it unconstitutional. IANAL, but this is my understanding. Same holds true of your 2nd example, if it required Americans to turn in all the books they owned printed on that paper, for example.
  - eppp 3y ago
    Where on earth does it say that the government cannot limit access to information? If that were true then how on earth is book censorship legal? For that matter, how was it legal to change to digital tv broadcasts? CCP tiktok can absolutely still operate a website that wont be blocked. The medium of delivery isnt protected speech.
  - chii 3y ago
    > it ends up limiting Americans' access to information it is not a right to have unlimited access to any and all information. It is only a constitutional violation (by the gov't) to _prevent_ an american citizen from any speech. It would not be a violation to legislatively ban a company, unless that company was the only place you could make speeches, and thus resulting in the outcome where there's defacto speech repression. However, such a company ban, if it werent due a violation, would erode the trust in the US financial system. Because if the US decides they can just divest you without you violating any current known laws, it will make foreign investment in the US more difficult.
- harkinian 3y ago
  "People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content" I'm not convinced about that. Open letter to congress from JFNA: https://cdn.fedweb.org/fed-1/1/Jewish%2520Federation%2520Letter%2520on%2520H.R.%25207521.pdf https://cdn.fedweb.org/fed-1/1/Jewish%2520Federation%2520Let...
orangecat 3y ago
Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want And they do. This isn't a content-based ban. If a non-Chinese company acquires TikTok, they can continue to host exactly the same material without restrictions.
- harkinian 3y ago
  Can't tell if the new company would be able to host the same exact material. It's already come out that the White House pressured Google and Facebook to promote covid19 vaccine content. YouTube banning Russia-linked channels doesn't seem like their own decision either. The US doesn't control its media nearly the same way many other countries do, but there's still some control. If you look at the rhetoric of lawmakers and lobbyists supporting the ban, a lot of it is about the content.

xdennis 3y ago

It's not the information that's banned, it's TikTok. People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content, they fear the power that an enemy nation has over their citizens. It's not a free speech issue. Imagine if a company developed a new form of paper and published many books on it. If the paper turns out to be toxic and is banned, the company can't then say "oh, no, we're being censured". It has nothing to do with the message.

Miner49er 3y ago
The courts can look at the effect of the ban, not just the intention. If the effect is that it ends up limiting Americans' access to information (which it would, unless ByteDance gave in and sold) then a court could find it unconstitutional. IANAL, but this is my understanding. Same holds true of your 2nd example, if it required Americans to turn in all the books they owned printed on that paper, for example.
- eppp 3y ago
  Where on earth does it say that the government cannot limit access to information? If that were true then how on earth is book censorship legal? For that matter, how was it legal to change to digital tv broadcasts? CCP tiktok can absolutely still operate a website that wont be blocked. The medium of delivery isnt protected speech.
- chii 3y ago
  > it ends up limiting Americans' access to information it is not a right to have unlimited access to any and all information. It is only a constitutional violation (by the gov't) to _prevent_ an american citizen from any speech. It would not be a violation to legislatively ban a company, unless that company was the only place you could make speeches, and thus resulting in the outcome where there's defacto speech repression. However, such a company ban, if it werent due a violation, would erode the trust in the US financial system. Because if the US decides they can just divest you without you violating any current known laws, it will make foreign investment in the US more difficult.
harkinian 3y ago
"People don't seek to ban TikTok because they fear the content" I'm not convinced about that. Open letter to congress from JFNA: https://cdn.fedweb.org/fed-1/1/Jewish%2520Federation%2520Letter%2520on%2520H.R.%25207521.pdf https://cdn.fedweb.org/fed-1/1/Jewish%2520Federation%2520Let...

orangecat 3y ago

Yes, and Americans should have the freedoms to receive whatever information they want And they do. This isn't a content-based ban. If a non-Chinese company acquires TikTok, they can continue to host exactly the same material without restrictions.

harkinian 3y ago
Can't tell if the new company would be able to host the same exact material. It's already come out that the White House pressured Google and Facebook to promote covid19 vaccine content. YouTube banning Russia-linked channels doesn't seem like their own decision either. The US doesn't control its media nearly the same way many other countries do, but there's still some control. If you look at the rhetoric of lawmakers and lobbyists supporting the ban, a lot of it is about the content.