6 ms·
In your opinion. That's not the rationale proffered in the legislation however.
by nickburns 2y ago
In your opinion. That's not the rationale proffered in the legislation however.
- buyucu 2y agobecause politicians are honest and don't lie, right?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nozzlegear 2y agoIt also wasn't the rationale proffered in the arguments to the US Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.
- metalman 2y agoThere was no evidence disclosed, the "arguments" ha!, are speculation based on hearsay, and nothing else. The whole episode shows a disregard for the US constitution and mountains of legal precident on these matters. 170 million citizens made a choice, and they have been denied any disclosure as to why they are being prohibited from conducting there own affairs and business, under the guise of national security, backed up with may,might,could. Good look, that.
- nozzlegear 2y agoWhat evidence did you expect them to disclose? If it's a matter of national security, it's not going to be released publicly. > The whole episode shows a disregard for the US constitution and mountains of legal precident on these matters. I disagree. There's plenty of precedent for this, we have laws on the books for over 100 years that prevent foreign ownership of American media. In those days it was newspapers, radio and later tv stations – in fact those laws a large part of why Rupert Murdoch became an American citizen. This law is just the modern version of those previous laws. You might disagree with them, but there's plenty of precedent.