4 ms·

Your argument is that an app which is indirectly owned and influenced by the Chinese Communist Party is a conduit for free speech and the US government banning

• woooooo 3y ago
  It's not about the Chinese, or any other decade's Official Villain. Its about us and our principles. Whether we stick to them. There's no "unless they're Chinese" clause in the first amendment.
  • Nostromos 3y ago
    There's also no "free speech at all costs" clause. I've always wondered why we allow Chinese companies almost unfettered access to our market when we don't get the same in return. It used to be part of the deal but China was a special case and we held out hope they'd moderate. They have not, so we no longer have to be the one playing by the rules. That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
    • woooooo 3y ago
      There's very clear jurisprudence on when free speech can be abridged, and it's not "vague suspicions of being nefarious". In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.