5 ms·

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... unless they mumble 'national security', and then screw the const

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... unless they mumble 'national security', and then screw the constitution ...

bdcravens 2y ago
Congress does have the power to regulate foreign commerce however. Not that I disagree with you, but rarely can something be distilled to a single concern.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  It is a balancing act for sure, but is it 'right' to have all those choices, but only as long as they sufficiently support governing body overall worldview?
lm28469 2y ago
Americans finally discovering their constitution is interpreted all day every day is the funniest thing on the internet. You also don't have free speech, and your rights to bear arm are very restricted.
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Foreign corporations do not have free speech rights.
- nness 2y ago
  I actually think that they do — tourists to the US have free speech protections. There are many foreign-owned press outlets operating in the US (Forbes, Al Jazeera, RT, CGTN etc.) that are also protected by the first amendment.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Miner49er 2y ago
  Doesn't matter, US citizens have the right to receive the speech on TikTok
- mindslight 2y ago
  The real answer is that no corporations should have free speech rights in and of themselves - by obtaining a government granted liability shield a corporation (/LLC) is not merely a group of individuals, but rather a highly scaled governmentesque entity running on its own subbureaucracy. That liability shield is an explicit government creation for specific public policy goals, and when the outcome is at odds with the individual freedom the arrangement can and should be modified.
- Nemo_bis 2y ago
  Remember, money is speech (Citizens United v. FEC)!
tdb7893 2y ago
There are still a million places online people can organize and assemble so I don't really see how this right is being meaningfully infringed here. It definitely doesn't seem clear to me that this clause means the government needs to maintain every avenue of assembly to the point this is a constitutional issue.
- tevon 2y ago
  THIS! If you listen to the arguments that TikTok made before the Supreme Court, the court is extremely dubious of the free speech argument. And this has been a court that has been very favorable to free speech overall.
- serenadeineb 2y ago
  Its the fact that 140 million of us chose to assemble in this place ( app ) that IMHO should have weighed much higher as a concern, over speculative spoooky dangers. No actual harm to the country was shown, just supposition, which equates to us trusting the government when it strips out constitutional rights away.
tevon 2y ago
It makes no sense to me how this is an argument of free speech. I assume you are saying this is curtailing the creators speech? However the creators can move to any other platform, they are not being restricted in what they can say or produce. So perhaps the concern is about TikTok's free speech; which, thank god the constitution does not protect a foreign adversaries right to free speech.
- Miner49er 2y ago
  Free speech includes the right to receive/hear speech. TikTok contains lots of speech that US citizens have the right to hear.
  - tevon 2y ago
    I agree, though not when broadcast by a foreign adversary (per the 1934 law). Forcing a sale to a US company also enables that to continue. Additionally, it does not protect the right for users to receive/hear speech from EVERY outlet, this same speech is permissible on any other platform - simply not one mediated by an adversary.
    - randomcatuser 2y ago
      I'm very curious about this case, actually. My top questions - difference between actually broadcast and potentially broadcast. Can the government suspend someone for potentially doing something? - More on the right to hear speech -- you're saying that I cannot receive speech from foreign adversaries if I choose to do so myself? IMO this is well within my rights - Do platform effects (e.g. recommendation) count as speech? For example, I may choose to post on TikTok bc it circulates in 24h to a specific audience - if TT got changed, does this mean that my speech got curtailed? (right to assemble, etc)
  - Invictus0 2y ago
    So just go hear it from somewhere else. There is no content on tiktok that can't be recorded and posted on instagram reels.
  - 2y ago

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... unless they mumble 'national security', and then screw the constitution ...

bdcravens 2y ago

Congress does have the power to regulate foreign commerce however. Not that I disagree with you, but rarely can something be distilled to a single concern.

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
It is a balancing act for sure, but is it 'right' to have all those choices, but only as long as they sufficiently support governing body overall worldview?

lm28469 2y ago

Americans finally discovering their constitution is interpreted all day every day is the funniest thing on the internet. You also don't have free speech, and your rights to bear arm are very restricted.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

Foreign corporations do not have free speech rights.

nness 2y ago
I actually think that they do — tourists to the US have free speech protections. There are many foreign-owned press outlets operating in the US (Forbes, Al Jazeera, RT, CGTN etc.) that are also protected by the first amendment.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Miner49er 2y ago
Doesn't matter, US citizens have the right to receive the speech on TikTok
mindslight 2y ago
The real answer is that no corporations should have free speech rights in and of themselves - by obtaining a government granted liability shield a corporation (/LLC) is not merely a group of individuals, but rather a highly scaled governmentesque entity running on its own subbureaucracy. That liability shield is an explicit government creation for specific public policy goals, and when the outcome is at odds with the individual freedom the arrangement can and should be modified.
Nemo_bis 2y ago
Remember, money is speech (Citizens United v. FEC)!

tdb7893 2y ago

There are still a million places online people can organize and assemble so I don't really see how this right is being meaningfully infringed here. It definitely doesn't seem clear to me that this clause means the government needs to maintain every avenue of assembly to the point this is a constitutional issue.

tevon 2y ago
THIS! If you listen to the arguments that TikTok made before the Supreme Court, the court is extremely dubious of the free speech argument. And this has been a court that has been very favorable to free speech overall.
serenadeineb 2y ago
Its the fact that 140 million of us chose to assemble in this place ( app ) that IMHO should have weighed much higher as a concern, over speculative spoooky dangers. No actual harm to the country was shown, just supposition, which equates to us trusting the government when it strips out constitutional rights away.

tevon 2y ago

It makes no sense to me how this is an argument of free speech. I assume you are saying this is curtailing the creators speech? However the creators can move to any other platform, they are not being restricted in what they can say or produce. So perhaps the concern is about TikTok's free speech; which, thank god the constitution does not protect a foreign adversaries right to free speech.

Miner49er 2y ago
Free speech includes the right to receive/hear speech. TikTok contains lots of speech that US citizens have the right to hear.
- tevon 2y ago
  I agree, though not when broadcast by a foreign adversary (per the 1934 law). Forcing a sale to a US company also enables that to continue. Additionally, it does not protect the right for users to receive/hear speech from EVERY outlet, this same speech is permissible on any other platform - simply not one mediated by an adversary.
  - randomcatuser 2y ago
    I'm very curious about this case, actually. My top questions - difference between actually broadcast and potentially broadcast. Can the government suspend someone for potentially doing something? - More on the right to hear speech -- you're saying that I cannot receive speech from foreign adversaries if I choose to do so myself? IMO this is well within my rights - Do platform effects (e.g. recommendation) count as speech? For example, I may choose to post on TikTok bc it circulates in 24h to a specific audience - if TT got changed, does this mean that my speech got curtailed? (right to assemble, etc)
- Invictus0 2y ago
  So just go hear it from somewhere else. There is no content on tiktok that can't be recorded and posted on instagram reels.
- 2y ago