4 ms·

IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for no

by wk_end 2y ago

IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.

dartos 2y ago
Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it. Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
- vkou 2y ago
  Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed. Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc. If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
  - dartos 2y ago
    > why should their ideas be let in through a social network? Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country? Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population. Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax. What does that government do? They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country. Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
- gpm 2y ago
  The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient. > The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”). > Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.
smogcutter 2y ago
You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity). It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
- ericjmorey 2y ago
  What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Obligatory IANAL. The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#People_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Where_the_Constitution_is_legally_effective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    > The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.

by wk_end 2y ago

IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.

dartos 2y ago

Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it. Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)

vkou 2y ago
Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed. Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc. If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
- dartos 2y ago
  > why should their ideas be let in through a social network? Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country? Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population. Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax. What does that government do? They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country. Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.
gpm 2y ago
The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient. > The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”). > Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

smogcutter 2y ago

You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity). It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.

ericjmorey 2y ago
What's written and what's enforced often don't align.
selimthegrim 2y ago
It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone
Dalewyn 2y ago
Obligatory IANAL. The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#People_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Where_the_Constitution_is_legally_effective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...
- hn_acker 2y ago
  > The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2] No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.