10 ms·
US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
- delichon 2y ago> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago[flagged]
- JulianChastain 2y agoI think that the first amendment prevents congress from banning tiktok for the reason that the content is objectionable. Instead they would need to argue that it is a nation security risk (spyware, etc)
- Leary 2y agoEven if it deals with national security, the law must pass either strict or intermediate scrutiny [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny I think it won't.
- extheat 2y agoThe "National security" needs of the day trumps the 1st amendment. Only U.S. (and a certain other place which won't be named) propaganda is allowed.
- Leary 2y agoForeign propaganda is allowed. (Lamont vs. Postmaster General) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-general/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...
- RandomLensman 2y agoLimits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoI think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies Source? Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310 [2] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/propaganda-and-the-american-public https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/propaganda-and-the...
- aw1621107 2y ago> > think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies > Source? The first thing that comes to mind is Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC [0], where part of the holding relied on the limited available radio spectrum compared to other publication mediums. [0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/
- bonestamp2 2y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoCan we please not? This forum is better than this.
- RandomLensman 2y agoWhat do you make of limits/approval regimes for broadcast services then?
- jncfhnb 2y agoThe first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.
- whimsicalism 2y agoSure, the first amendment doesn't say much in general - but ownership of the press laws almost certainly impact on the 1A as interpreted today.
- jncfhnb 2y agoIf you want to include the precedents that explicitly include examples of limiting ownership of media and distribution channels then sure
- ZoomerCretin 2y agoAnd the fourth says nothing about computers and hard drives. And yet, they are safe from search without a warrant.
- jncfhnb 2y ago… right because the fourth amendment says “search and seizure”. And as you say, that’s a search. I am not contesting that the first amendment fails to name TikTok. I’m contesting that the first amendment does not protect your right to own media distribution channels. We have laws that limit ownership of distribution channels already.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners? By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.) [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subpart-A/section-7.4 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
- orhmeh09 2y agoYes, as you have just shown, there is a category of "preferred owners."
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> there is a category of "preferred owners." There isn’t. There is a category of foreign adversaries. It’s negative selection, not positive. “Preferred owners” would be the U.S. government requiring joint venturing with a hand-picked JV partner. Like Beijing.
- ARandomerDude 2y agoCome on, spend 5 more minutes thinking about this. Phase 1: restricted if from China Phase 2: restricted if influenced by China Phase 3: restricted if sympathetic to China Phase 4: China isn’t the only bad thing for America. If you have the following ideas, those are just as dangerous. “Speech is violence.” Also “silence is violence.” This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.) Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThere are already laws against foreign ownership of media companies.
- markus_zhang 2y agoIs September a fast track though? Outside of IT I feel everything is moving at slow motion. Sure they need armies of lawyers but I assume they already hired a lot? Why not a direct ban but requires the army of lawyers to request an appeal? I bet this would send motions faster -- they won't wait for 4 months.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- AndyMcConachie 2y agoBecause due process. ALso, the bill doesn't ban Tiktok. It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity so the US security state can more easily threaten them and force them to censor their anti-imperialist content.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity No, it does not. (It requires sale to a non-foreign adversary controlled person. A sale to an Indian, South African or Brazilian company would be fine.)
- ZoomerCretin 2y agoThe sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States. Every buyer will be blocked until they find one that is sufficiently hostile to the idea that Palestinians deserve human rights. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china-israel-palestine-mitt-romney.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/tiktok-ban-china...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> sale must be personally approved by the President of the United States No, it does not. Your link doesn’t even say as much. It requires the President determine, “through an interagency process,” that the app is “no longer controlled by a foreign adversary” [1]. That language invokes the APA [2], explicitly rules out personal approval, and provides an objective endpoint that can be challenged in court. [1] https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Updated.pdf https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240311/HR%207521%20Up... § 2(g)(6) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
- incomingpain 2y ago>consider the legal challenges to a new law requiring China-based ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. assets by Jan. 19 or face a ban. This legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan supported and placed under national security, in an election year, whose court case will happen by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed before Jan 19th ban. But the election is 1 month prior. That this most likely will become an election issue where republicans and democrats can 'be on the same page' about and show some unity.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> But the election is 1 month prior Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to.
- incomingpain 2y ago>Which means the public can make it an issue if it wants to. That's what I'm saying, it's highly probable that it will be.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> it's highly probable that it will be I’m sceptical, but not confidently so. The demo that would have been relevant has significant overlap with voters who will never vote for Trump or Biden. Unless they can mobilise convincingly down ballot, they’re for practical purposes out of the race.
- incomingpain 2y agoThat's an interesting idea. Trump/Biden doesn't matter but could tiktok form/boost a third party that beats the democrats and republicans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx The independent vote is huge. Could this be Robert F Kennedy's time to shine?
- neilv 2y ago> Driven by worries among U.S. lawmakers that China could access data on Americans or spy on them with the app, There's an arguable national security angle. Potential surveillance, and, especially, manipulation and dumbing-down. Earlier, I also heard complaints about TikTok implications for individual health. Which, when implying US Big Tech social media as an acceptable alternative, sounds like an abusive parent: "If anyone's going to beat up my kids, it'll be me!" Sounds like US Big Tech might've decided on the complaint angle of "some other country could spy on people" -- since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products. Outlaw the irresponsible behaviors, not the competition.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> since all the other valid complaints about TikTok, including intimate surveillance, also apply to TikTok's counterpart US Big Tech products Big Tech aren’t Chinese. There is no public coalition civically engaged against Big Tech’s surveillance. There is a solid bloc concerned about China. If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote).
- dylan604 2y ago> If you want to regulate surveillance capitalism—and I do—convince people to care about the issue (and call their electeds and vote). But the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work. It is the absolute ultimate anti-democratic tool I have ever seen.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the people being targeted by the platform are all watching videos telling them how their votes don't count, the deep state, and other things to encourage people to believe the system does not work Sure, but they have the right to self select out of the civic process (as well as to hear and repeat such things). I wouldn’t support this bill if TikTok.com were going to be blocked; the speech still has a right to the light of day.
- pbiggar 2y agoThe claim that this is is about national security is absurd. It's about Palestine, and Blinken and Romney admitted as much. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senator-romney-antony-blinken-tiktok-ban-israel-palestinian-content https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/05/06/senato... > Romney replied, "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoPractically everything passed by the Congress requires a coalition. That means single attributions are rarely correct. The protests added a coalition partner to the team, but that was marginal and far from the bulk of electeds’ (and voters’) concerns. First and foremost, this is and has been for a few years now about China.
- ozzzy1 2y agoThat coalition is looking like Politicians wanting that juicy AIPAC money
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> coalition is looking like Politicians wanting that juicy AIPAC money They want those voters. Again, most people who called their electeds and have a voting record seemed to mention China, at least in New York, Arizona, Wyoming and California, where I know some of the folks.
- masfrost 2y agoSingle attributions are rarely correct until it's about Israel/Palestine. You might need to immerse yourself more in the issue before you start noticing these things.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mrkramer 2y agoI know that US has liberal constitution and liberal market economy but putting aside national security risks; why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well? You could argue that Facebook and Google could abide by Chinese censorship laws and then what? Strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology?!
- maxglute 2y agoMeta still gets billions (10% of global) from PRC based advertisers. IIRC sure Google in billions as well. And have been this entire time. >strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology? Of course, play by same rules/guidelines as domestic players. Will also have advantage in offering filtered content from abroad vs domestic players, also will gain a shitload of unique content from PRC net. Many of interesting content producers in PRC if Google leverages AI to transcribe, translate, dub. Plus handover dissident information, but thats table stakes. And eventually get pressured to block antiPRC rags like FLG media globally or be put on sanction/unreliable entity list.
- linearrust 2y ago> why would US let ByteDance reap billions of dollars in profit from US market when Google and Facebook are not allowed to participate in Chinese market and reap profits as well? Google and facebook are allowed to participate in the chinese market. If they follow chinese rules. One of them being storing chinese data in china which google and facebook refused to do. Why are microsoft, apple and other tech companies allowed to do busy in china? Because they follow chinese laws. > Strip down like 50% from overall content because it is not in line with CCP's ideology?! As opposed to stripping content to line up with israeli ideology, european ideology or anyone else's ideology? Other than hypocrisy, do you have a point?
- mrkramer 2y agoYou can shill for CCP as much as you want but when speaking of European or Israeli ideology, yes there are censorship laws but what censorship laws? For Nazi content, why you may ask? Because Nazi regime was mass murdering regime and on the other hand, in China, mass murder Mao is glorified as the father of the nation. That's the difference. Give Chinese people free speech as there is in US and then we can speak about fair competition.
- harrisrobin 2y agoAre people really that brainwashed that they don’t realize that the only reason tiktok is being banned is because of the Israel Lobby? A foreign nation wants to ban it because it doesn’t serve its interest, this foreign nation happens to buy up all our politicians.
- priminal 2y ago[flagged]
- submeta 2y agoNobody talking about the elefant in the room: Palestine. It’s all about Pro-Palestinian protests and sentiments that are the reason for this ban.