4 ms·

> 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 o

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
Even 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 ago
The "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 ago
  Foreign 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 ago
    Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      I 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
      Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Can we please not? This forum is better than this.
RandomLensman 2y ago
What do you make of limits/approval regimes for broadcast services then?
jncfhnb 2y ago
The first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Sure, 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 ago
    If you want to include the precedents that explicitly include examples of limiting ownership of media and distribution channels then sure
- ZoomerCretin 2y ago
  And 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
  Come 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 ago
There are already laws against foreign ownership of media companies.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

MaxHoppersGhost 2y ago

[flagged]

JulianChastain 2y ago

I 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 ago

Even 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 ago

The "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 ago
Foreign 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 ago
  Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    I 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
    Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Can we please not? This forum is better than this.

RandomLensman 2y ago

What do you make of limits/approval regimes for broadcast services then?

jncfhnb 2y ago

The first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.

whimsicalism 2y ago
Sure, 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 ago
  If you want to include the precedents that explicitly include examples of limiting ownership of media and distribution channels then sure
ZoomerCretin 2y ago
And 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
Come 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 ago

There are already laws against foreign ownership of media companies.