6 ms·

> You can't own a broadcast station in the US as a non-US citizen Because freedom of speech doesn't work in practice?

by codedokode 2y ago

gpt5 2y ago
Because freedom of speech is less protected (in practice) for foreign entities.
didjxhxhsvc 2y ago
Maybe you can expand on what you’re trying to say because freedom of speech is protected afaik.
sillypuddy 2y ago
If the ban was based on the context of the speech it would violate the constitution, but ownership of corporations is fair game to regulate. It's not uncommon for countries to have foreign ownership restrictions on other industries like banking, utilities, railroads, etc.
- chrischen 2y ago
  The other problem is the teapot calling the kettle black. If the US has precedent, and this action follows that precedent, then our bitching and whining about Google and Facebook in China previously makes us look really contradictory. We’ll end up validating Chinese policies all these years if we claim this action has precedent. If it doesn’t have precedent, then it’s even worse. It becomes a case of “if you can’t beat them, join them (or their practices).”
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    > The other problem is the teapot calling the kettle black. You could say the same thing about China complaining about this. Actually, that's what people would think of first when you mentioned "the teapot calling the kettle back". Frankly, I think people in China are surprised we kept our internet open for so long. Anyways, yes, American is now admitting that they will play by the same rules as China, rather than giving them a pass.
    - chrischen 2y ago
      What does it matter what China does? If they don’t want our stuff then that’s their choice. I mean, we voluntarily use an economic blockade as a weapon against North Korea, Iran, and Russia, and it is not to their benefits. My whole second point about joining them is saying that it shouldn’t matter what China does or says. They are hypocrites so we can be too???
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I mean, if you think like that, then it doesn't really matter at all. Americans aren't so bound to concept of Chinese face that they actually even care about this. Since we don't get face hurt, accusations of hypocrisy are pretty pointless anyways.
        chrischen 2y ago
        Saving face is not just about saving face. There's also your credibility at stake. There's only so many times you can invade a country under false pretenses before the international community, or even your own constituency, starts siding with the opposition. I guess also if we really don't have any principles anymore, we'll have devolved back to survival of the fittest principles. At which point we don't need thinkers, just people doing what they can to get what they can all the time. No need to argue or make points. Just fight it out and save some time.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        China said "American companies not welcome in China's internet", well they didn't say it, they just made that the truth. America saying "Chinese companies not welcome in America's internet" 10 years later isn't going to raise many eyebrows abroad. For the most part, people are wondering why it took so long. > I guess also if we really don't have any principles anymore, we'll have devolved back to survival of the fittest principles. China has been very clear that the principle should be tit for tat. All of their economic and foreign policy is based on that, from the visas they issue to visitors, the tariffs we exchange on vehicle production, and the foreigners they throw in prison when one of their own is put on house arrest in Canada. This is just a very late counter-reaction to a policy China has held for awhile.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    How would it validate China? China has made itself a laughing stock hypocrite. It tells everyone how bad free speech is, and then it begs for free speech? Conversely America is holding to its core values of restricting governments from acting in the political field. That right is reserved for citizens, and is especially protected from government use. America is founded on restricting government so that free speech can exist. This move firmly reestablishes America as a leader in free speech protection, as it protects citizens speech from influence by government, both domestic, and now, foreign.
  - themacguffinman 2y ago
    This isn't the US joining China's practices, they aren't cracking down on all foreign ownership, they're targeting China as a tit-for-tat. Tit-for-tat is the right response to a defector like China, the US still cooperates with other cooperators like those in Europe.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  >If the ban was based on the context of the speech it would violate the constitution It still wouldn't violate the Constitution. Rights are reserved for citizens. It's perfectly legal to tell TikTok what they can or can't say. That's not what Congress has done, but it would be legal.
jrockway 2y ago
There can only be a finite number of broadcasters because of how radio works, so it makes sense to regulate. (A little bit of sense, not a lot.) There should be no restrictions on who owns a website. There can be an unlimited number of websites, and every website's "reception range" is the entire planet. Today's rulemaking pushes us one step closer to a Great Firewall. If ByteDance moves operations entirely to China, what measures will the government enact to prevent people in the US from using it? (It will probably be strong-arming app stores, but that will fail because they can just make it a web app. So the only option will be to have two Internets, one with everything except TikTok, and one with everything.) It will be interesting if this extends to other apps. Will it be unamerican to play Genshin Impact?
- qmarchi 2y ago
  In this particular case, the law targets financial interactions with the company in question. So it wouldn't actually ban the company from serving on the internet, but no US company can knowingly facilitate their services on their servers. Ex, ByteDance couldn't go to AWS and ask for capacity, nor could they go to Hurricane Electric and ask for Peering.
throwawayq3423 2y ago
No because a US person can be called in to answer questions in a court of law or before congress. If the owner is Chinese living in London, where would you even begin ?
- heffer 2y ago
  There is always the option to detain them in Canada and maybe, possibly extradite them to the US (or not).
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    That was for breaking sanctions law, but you supported my point. It's difficult.
trimethylpurine 2y ago
Because freedoms apply to US citizens. It works just fine.
- takeda 2y ago
  That's exactly it. Freedom of speech is my right to be able to bitch about Biden or Trump without having to worry that I'll die in prison. Freedom of speech is not a right of foreign entities sending me memes about them to manipulate who I will vote for in the election. There's a law where foreign entities can't own TV or Radio in US. This might be controversial, but IMO it should be updated to also include social media as this is source where people get news from.
- Gormo 2y ago
  Well, no, that's not quite right. Even though we nominalize the concept of 'freedoms' as something that we have (making it possible to conceptualize there being people who don't have them), the actual legal framework in place operationalizes these freedoms as restrictions on the exercise of political power, without qualification. In other words "freedom of speech" means that Congress doesn't have the power to pass laws that suppress speech itself, regardless of where it comes from. It's not that the first amendment applies to some people (and certainly not that it doesn't apply to others), but that it applies to Congress and limits what laws they can pass without qualification.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    Your interpretation might have been right before. But now you're looking at a vast majority bipartisan vote that makes something inarguably clear; China doesn't have those rights as of the most recent interpretation. That's now true, regardless of previous interpretations.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      That's not the way it works. Bipartisan votes in Congress don't alter the constitution, or expand Congress's own power under the constitution, unless the vote is for a constitutional amendment, which must subsequently be ratified by the states to become effective.

> You can't own a broadcast station in the US as a non-US citizen Because freedom of speech doesn't work in practice?

gpt5 2y ago

Because freedom of speech is less protected (in practice) for foreign entities.

didjxhxhsvc 2y ago

Maybe you can expand on what you’re trying to say because freedom of speech is protected afaik.

sillypuddy 2y ago

If the ban was based on the context of the speech it would violate the constitution, but ownership of corporations is fair game to regulate. It's not uncommon for countries to have foreign ownership restrictions on other industries like banking, utilities, railroads, etc.

chrischen 2y ago
The other problem is the teapot calling the kettle black. If the US has precedent, and this action follows that precedent, then our bitching and whining about Google and Facebook in China previously makes us look really contradictory. We’ll end up validating Chinese policies all these years if we claim this action has precedent. If it doesn’t have precedent, then it’s even worse. It becomes a case of “if you can’t beat them, join them (or their practices).”
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > The other problem is the teapot calling the kettle black. You could say the same thing about China complaining about this. Actually, that's what people would think of first when you mentioned "the teapot calling the kettle back". Frankly, I think people in China are surprised we kept our internet open for so long. Anyways, yes, American is now admitting that they will play by the same rules as China, rather than giving them a pass.
  - chrischen 2y ago
    What does it matter what China does? If they don’t want our stuff then that’s their choice. I mean, we voluntarily use an economic blockade as a weapon against North Korea, Iran, and Russia, and it is not to their benefits. My whole second point about joining them is saying that it shouldn’t matter what China does or says. They are hypocrites so we can be too???
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      I mean, if you think like that, then it doesn't really matter at all. Americans aren't so bound to concept of Chinese face that they actually even care about this. Since we don't get face hurt, accusations of hypocrisy are pretty pointless anyways.
      - chrischen 2y ago
        Saving face is not just about saving face. There's also your credibility at stake. There's only so many times you can invade a country under false pretenses before the international community, or even your own constituency, starts siding with the opposition. I guess also if we really don't have any principles anymore, we'll have devolved back to survival of the fittest principles. At which point we don't need thinkers, just people doing what they can to get what they can all the time. No need to argue or make points. Just fight it out and save some time.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        China said "American companies not welcome in China's internet", well they didn't say it, they just made that the truth. America saying "Chinese companies not welcome in America's internet" 10 years later isn't going to raise many eyebrows abroad. For the most part, people are wondering why it took so long. > I guess also if we really don't have any principles anymore, we'll have devolved back to survival of the fittest principles. China has been very clear that the principle should be tit for tat. All of their economic and foreign policy is based on that, from the visas they issue to visitors, the tariffs we exchange on vehicle production, and the foreigners they throw in prison when one of their own is put on house arrest in Canada. This is just a very late counter-reaction to a policy China has held for awhile.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  How would it validate China? China has made itself a laughing stock hypocrite. It tells everyone how bad free speech is, and then it begs for free speech? Conversely America is holding to its core values of restricting governments from acting in the political field. That right is reserved for citizens, and is especially protected from government use. America is founded on restricting government so that free speech can exist. This move firmly reestablishes America as a leader in free speech protection, as it protects citizens speech from influence by government, both domestic, and now, foreign.
- themacguffinman 2y ago
  This isn't the US joining China's practices, they aren't cracking down on all foreign ownership, they're targeting China as a tit-for-tat. Tit-for-tat is the right response to a defector like China, the US still cooperates with other cooperators like those in Europe.
trimethylpurine 2y ago
>If the ban was based on the context of the speech it would violate the constitution It still wouldn't violate the Constitution. Rights are reserved for citizens. It's perfectly legal to tell TikTok what they can or can't say. That's not what Congress has done, but it would be legal.

jrockway 2y ago

There can only be a finite number of broadcasters because of how radio works, so it makes sense to regulate. (A little bit of sense, not a lot.) There should be no restrictions on who owns a website. There can be an unlimited number of websites, and every website's "reception range" is the entire planet. Today's rulemaking pushes us one step closer to a Great Firewall. If ByteDance moves operations entirely to China, what measures will the government enact to prevent people in the US from using it? (It will probably be strong-arming app stores, but that will fail because they can just make it a web app. So the only option will be to have two Internets, one with everything except TikTok, and one with everything.) It will be interesting if this extends to other apps. Will it be unamerican to play Genshin Impact?

qmarchi 2y ago
In this particular case, the law targets financial interactions with the company in question. So it wouldn't actually ban the company from serving on the internet, but no US company can knowingly facilitate their services on their servers. Ex, ByteDance couldn't go to AWS and ask for capacity, nor could they go to Hurricane Electric and ask for Peering.

throwawayq3423 2y ago

No because a US person can be called in to answer questions in a court of law or before congress. If the owner is Chinese living in London, where would you even begin ?

heffer 2y ago
There is always the option to detain them in Canada and maybe, possibly extradite them to the US (or not).
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  That was for breaking sanctions law, but you supported my point. It's difficult.

trimethylpurine 2y ago

Because freedoms apply to US citizens. It works just fine.

takeda 2y ago
That's exactly it. Freedom of speech is my right to be able to bitch about Biden or Trump without having to worry that I'll die in prison. Freedom of speech is not a right of foreign entities sending me memes about them to manipulate who I will vote for in the election. There's a law where foreign entities can't own TV or Radio in US. This might be controversial, but IMO it should be updated to also include social media as this is source where people get news from.
Gormo 2y ago
Well, no, that's not quite right. Even though we nominalize the concept of 'freedoms' as something that we have (making it possible to conceptualize there being people who don't have them), the actual legal framework in place operationalizes these freedoms as restrictions on the exercise of political power, without qualification. In other words "freedom of speech" means that Congress doesn't have the power to pass laws that suppress speech itself, regardless of where it comes from. It's not that the first amendment applies to some people (and certainly not that it doesn't apply to others), but that it applies to Congress and limits what laws they can pass without qualification.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  Your interpretation might have been right before. But now you're looking at a vast majority bipartisan vote that makes something inarguably clear; China doesn't have those rights as of the most recent interpretation. That's now true, regardless of previous interpretations.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    That's not the way it works. Bipartisan votes in Congress don't alter the constitution, or expand Congress's own power under the constitution, unless the vote is for a constitutional amendment, which must subsequently be ratified by the states to become effective.