3 ms·

"Free speech" is not like the free square in Bingo. You can't just use it whenever. Commerce is already regulated, speech is already regulated, there's no way a

"Free speech" is not like the free square in Bingo. You can't just use it whenever. Commerce is already regulated, speech is already regulated, there's no way around those things not being absolute. If you have a specific argument about the nuance of this situation, then make it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nadermx 2y ago
"the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional, since it imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  That seems like a very different case since it imposed different rules depending on the content of the speech. The analogous situation to the tiktok ban would be shutting down the postal service, which would be surprising but presumably constitutional.
porknubbins 2y ago
I’m no Tiktok fan but the US has extremely broad free speech protections and its hard to see how this could be constitutional. Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. None of the usual exceptions for certain types of content (defamation, threats, fraud etc) apply because the restriction isn’t on specific content. The only way out I could see is saying national security/secrets require us to prevent the Chinese company Tiktok from operating in the US.
- FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
  But their free speech isn’t limited. They lose a platform, which is something completely different. Free speech doesn’t mean having to facilitate it. People can still create a website and post their clips, or move to instagram or Snapchat or bluesky or twitter or whatever.
  - porknubbins 2y ago
    Thats true from the point of view of the individual poster claiming free speech infringement. I guess I was thiking of it from the point of the corporation which could claim something like a right to use an algorithm to promote certain videos as speech. I’m not sure if this has been decided by higher courts yet.
- wiseowise 2y ago
  > Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. Who’s preventing them from posting videos on platforms not controlled by CCP?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nadermx 2y ago

"the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional, since it imposes on the addressee an affirmative obligation which amounts to an unconstitutional limitation of his rights under the First Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

sebzim4500 2y ago
That seems like a very different case since it imposed different rules depending on the content of the speech. The analogous situation to the tiktok ban would be shutting down the postal service, which would be surprising but presumably constitutional.

porknubbins 2y ago

I’m no Tiktok fan but the US has extremely broad free speech protections and its hard to see how this could be constitutional. Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. None of the usual exceptions for certain types of content (defamation, threats, fraud etc) apply because the restriction isn’t on specific content. The only way out I could see is saying national security/secrets require us to prevent the Chinese company Tiktok from operating in the US.

FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
But their free speech isn’t limited. They lose a platform, which is something completely different. Free speech doesn’t mean having to facilitate it. People can still create a website and post their clips, or move to instagram or Snapchat or bluesky or twitter or whatever.
- porknubbins 2y ago
  Thats true from the point of view of the individual poster claiming free speech infringement. I guess I was thiking of it from the point of the corporation which could claim something like a right to use an algorithm to promote certain videos as speech. I’m not sure if this has been decided by higher courts yet.
wiseowise 2y ago
> Individuals posting videos of themselves is clearly speech so we are in the 1st amendment territory. Who’s preventing them from posting videos on platforms not controlled by CCP?