8 ms·

Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok-ban htt

Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok-ban https://action.aclu.org/send-message/tell-congress-no-tiktok... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates-americans-first-amendment-rights https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-scotus-tiktok-ban-violates... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supreme-courts-decision-uphold-tiktok-ban https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre... It seems to me that they aren't "pretending" they honestly believe the issue is about free speech. Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does just that can certainly be created.

richwater 2y ago
ACLU is a biased organization and only supports the bill of rights when it suits their political alignment.
- freehorse 2y ago
  And what is their political alignment in this case (and in general)? Considering that banning tiktok got voted with bipartisan support.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    As I understand things, they tend to leave gun rights stuff to the enormous and well-funded NRA. In cases from "Roe vs Wade" to "Masterpiece Cakeshop" and "Hobby Lobby" the ACLU came out against things supported by the religious right. And although the ACLU regularly supports the free speech rights of swastika-tattoed nazis - Republicans don't see that as supporting their side, because no reasonable person wants to think people with swastika tattoos are on their side.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.
  - digismack 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - BitterCritter 2y ago
      This applies to TikTok. We can’t be tolerant of any social media that disallows specific words or groups.
      - knome 2y ago
        The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you. One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak. Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum. As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech. That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.
        SSilver2k2 2y ago
        This is probably the best summary / example I have read on how to explain the paradox of tolerance. Thank you!
        account42 2y ago
        The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.
      - jahewson 2y ago
        No that would contradict freedom of association. People are free to form closed, self-censoring groups if they choose to. What we want to avoid is the government forcing it on people.
- bko 2y ago
  For those unaware of ACLU's change over the last 10 or so years, here is an example: In September 2021, the ACLU wrote a New York Times op-ed defending vaccine requirements, arguing they actually advance civil liberties by protecting the most vulnerable and allowing more people to safely participate in public life. David Cole and Daniel Mach, the authors, wrote that individual liberty isn't absolute when it puts others at risk. Surely, one can be pro vaccine mandates. But I would not expect a civil liberties organization to hold this position. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-mandates-civil-liberties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-man...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - stuaxo 2y ago
    Well, whose rights are we talking about. There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from" lots of people not getting vaccinated affects people's freedom from getting infected.
    - _3u10 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - echoangle 2y ago
        This neglects that some people can't be vaccinated or they would still be vulnerable even after an effective vaccination. You're not just vaccinated to protect yourself, it also reduces risk for the people around you.
        account42 2y ago
        Those people can choose to self-quarantine.
        _3u10 2y ago
        Not always, there's always a risk to the vaccine which is why it shouldn't be mandated.
raverbashing 2y ago
[flagged]
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  This is silly. The EFF and ACLU do amazing and important work every day.
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    The use of the “useful idiot” trope tells you all you need to know about their opinions on any kind of entity dedicated to social issues.
  - jmye 2y ago
    And yet here they are, trying to pretend that a foreign government’s ability to run psyops is protected speech.
    - archagon 2y ago
      Why do you think they are pretending? Many of us agree with them. I think “trying to pretend” is just one of those thought terminating cliches to pretend that you have a winning argument.
- tivert 2y ago
  >> Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: > Honestly these "civil liberties" orgs have lost the plot a long time ago, or are just at "useful idiot" mode Exactly. When I read "many American civil liberties organizations think," my first thought was "they think a lot of things, that doesn't mean what they think is true or a good idea." Additionally: they're all essentially lawyers arguing one side of the case. Just listening to them is not going to lead to the correct outcomes (e.g. if courts only listened to prosecutors only, tons of innocent people would go to jail; if they only listened to defense attorneys, tons of guilty people would go free).
idiotsecant 2y ago
This issue is not about freedom of speech to any of the players. Its geopolitics. The ACLU and the EFF care about the precedent it sets. Shocking news: different players have different motivations.
vivekd 2y ago
I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  So if a particular book were published by a French company, the government could ban it from being sold in the US? I’m sure that’s not true.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    No, they couldn't ban just one book printed by a French company. They'd have to ban the company entirely. And that's what happened here too. It's not just TikTok that got banned, but all of ByteDance's other apps too, e.g., Marvel Snap and CapCut. And it's also important that divesting was an option instead. In your analogy, they couldn't ban the books outright, but could demand they be published somewhere else.
  - envy2 2y ago
    No. But they could ban American companies from providing services directly to that French publisher (e.g., a US company couldn't print books for or sell paper to that French publisher). However, a US law could not stop me from legally reading a copy I owned, or from selling or giving that copy to someone else within the US... The First Amendment case would be much clearer if this was actually about banning access to TikTok (it's not: TikTok self-blocked US users, Amazon/Oracle shut off servers, and app stores stopped distributing to US users). TikTok could choose to operate their service (like many other Chinese companies) using only non-US infra and without relying on American companies to distribute their app; indeed, the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, hosted entirely from Chinese servers, continued to work just fine. This case is also a reminder of why the iOS App Store is so bad for rights: at least on Android, you could sideload a 'banned' app; Google can comply with the law and US users can still download TikTok. On iOS, you don't have that option.
    - 2y ago
Zanni 2y ago
The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yellow_postit 2y ago
  I started having issues when they supported Citizens United
  - Gormo 2y ago
    But the ACLU was arguing in defense of free speech there.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Had citizens united gone the other way, imagine what Trump could’ve done with Facebook and Google to ensure reelection in 2020.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        He wouldn't have had to resort to complex modes of influence, that's for sure. It's very scary that we've gotten to the point where people are claiming to "protect democracy" by proposing to allow institutions controlled by incumbent politicians to regulate who is allowed to say what in the lead-up to elections.
Aunche 2y ago
> Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces Alphabet to sell Youtube.
- afiori 2y ago
  If antitrust laws did not exist then making them would need a constitutional amendment
addicted 2y ago
Well they’re clearly wrong. Go read the SC unanimous judgment. It’s very clear and lays out exactly why they’re wrong. In fact they do a lot more than that because they state off the bat that there isn’t even a first amendment question (a Chinese corporation doesn’t have first amendment rights in the U.S.), but they go beyond, assume the first amendment does apply, and still explain why that isn’t valid.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Yeah, I can't believe all these people are talking "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" so literally. Haven't these people heard of Wickard v. Filburn?
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Tiktok definitely isn't press and algorithm-powered social media feeds can hardly be considered free speech. It's not even speech - it's broadcast! We've regulated broadcast since its' inception.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      While Tiktok doesn't have literal printing presses, neither do TV networks. How can the first amendment be interpreted so broadly that large multinational corporations financially supporting politicians is considered free speech, yet so narrowly that social media isn't part of the media?
      - pixl97 2y ago
        > large multinational corporations financially supporting politicians You do realize that Rupert Murdoch was forced to become a US citizen because of the same laws that are in question about US media ownership. Social media is 100% the media. Social media has freedom of speech. Businesses don't have freedom of ownership, including media business. Kinda fucky, but this is very long standing law.
      - deleted 2y ago
UltraSane 2y ago
The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.

richwater 2y ago

ACLU is a biased organization and only supports the bill of rights when it suits their political alignment.

freehorse 2y ago
And what is their political alignment in this case (and in general)? Considering that banning tiktok got voted with bipartisan support.
- michaelt 2y ago
  As I understand things, they tend to leave gun rights stuff to the enormous and well-funded NRA. In cases from "Roe vs Wade" to "Masterpiece Cakeshop" and "Hobby Lobby" the ACLU came out against things supported by the religious right. And although the ACLU regularly supports the free speech rights of swastika-tattoed nazis - Republicans don't see that as supporting their side, because no reasonable person wants to think people with swastika tattoos are on their side.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
Unfortunately so. It didn't use to be that way - the ACLU used to be so principled that they would defend literal Nazis' rights. But they've fallen a long way since then.
- digismack 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - BitterCritter 2y ago
    This applies to TikTok. We can’t be tolerant of any social media that disallows specific words or groups.
    - knome 2y ago
      The paradox of tolerance specifically states that one must not be tolerant of intolerance. Hence, a paradox. Tolerance is a social contract of leaving alone others whose ways differ from your own so long as they do the same for you. One must not tolerate those that call for violence and subjugation of differing groups, which is almost the exact opposite meaning your comment seems to be implying in my reading of it, instead calling for wholly unfiltered speech by whosoever should deem to speak. Racists and similar hatemongers calling for others to tolerate them while they are screaming for those they disparage to be caste down and out cannot be tolerated in any reasonable forum. As such, any reasonable forum must ban some facets of free speech. That we disallow this power for governments is a reasonable limit on the powers of the elected to rule, lest those powers be abused.
      - SSilver2k2 2y ago
        This is probably the best summary / example I have read on how to explain the paradox of tolerance. Thank you!
        account42 2y ago
        The problem with this interpretation is of course that it lets you be as intolerant as you want to anyone you decree intolerant. Which is why it is so popular.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      No that would contradict freedom of association. People are free to form closed, self-censoring groups if they choose to. What we want to avoid is the government forcing it on people.
bko 2y ago
For those unaware of ACLU's change over the last 10 or so years, here is an example: In September 2021, the ACLU wrote a New York Times op-ed defending vaccine requirements, arguing they actually advance civil liberties by protecting the most vulnerable and allowing more people to safely participate in public life. David Cole and Daniel Mach, the authors, wrote that individual liberty isn't absolute when it puts others at risk. Surely, one can be pro vaccine mandates. But I would not expect a civil liberties organization to hold this position. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-mandates-civil-liberties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opinion/covid-vaccine-man...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- stuaxo 2y ago
  Well, whose rights are we talking about. There is "freedom to" and "Freedom from" lots of people not getting vaccinated affects people's freedom from getting infected.
  - _3u10 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - echoangle 2y ago
      This neglects that some people can't be vaccinated or they would still be vulnerable even after an effective vaccination. You're not just vaccinated to protect yourself, it also reduces risk for the people around you.
      - account42 2y ago
        Those people can choose to self-quarantine.
      - _3u10 2y ago
        Not always, there's always a risk to the vaccine which is why it shouldn't be mandated.

raverbashing 2y ago

[flagged]

idiotsecant 2y ago
This is silly. The EFF and ACLU do amazing and important work every day.
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  The use of the “useful idiot” trope tells you all you need to know about their opinions on any kind of entity dedicated to social issues.
- jmye 2y ago
  And yet here they are, trying to pretend that a foreign government’s ability to run psyops is protected speech.
  - archagon 2y ago
    Why do you think they are pretending? Many of us agree with them. I think “trying to pretend” is just one of those thought terminating cliches to pretend that you have a winning argument.
tivert 2y ago
>> Many American civil liberties organizations think that the the ban is a free speech issue: > Honestly these "civil liberties" orgs have lost the plot a long time ago, or are just at "useful idiot" mode Exactly. When I read "many American civil liberties organizations think," my first thought was "they think a lot of things, that doesn't mean what they think is true or a good idea." Additionally: they're all essentially lawyers arguing one side of the case. Just listening to them is not going to lead to the correct outcomes (e.g. if courts only listened to prosecutors only, tons of innocent people would go to jail; if they only listened to defense attorneys, tons of guilty people would go free).

idiotsecant 2y ago

This issue is not about freedom of speech to any of the players. Its geopolitics. The ACLU and the EFF care about the precedent it sets. Shocking news: different players have different motivations.

vivekd 2y ago

I don't know if it's a free speech issue but legally speaking it's definitely not a first amendment issue because the law targets foreign corporations and the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign entities

School-Cotton 2y ago
So if a particular book were published by a French company, the government could ban it from being sold in the US? I’m sure that’s not true.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  No, they couldn't ban just one book printed by a French company. They'd have to ban the company entirely. And that's what happened here too. It's not just TikTok that got banned, but all of ByteDance's other apps too, e.g., Marvel Snap and CapCut. And it's also important that divesting was an option instead. In your analogy, they couldn't ban the books outright, but could demand they be published somewhere else.
- envy2 2y ago
  No. But they could ban American companies from providing services directly to that French publisher (e.g., a US company couldn't print books for or sell paper to that French publisher). However, a US law could not stop me from legally reading a copy I owned, or from selling or giving that copy to someone else within the US... The First Amendment case would be much clearer if this was actually about banning access to TikTok (it's not: TikTok self-blocked US users, Amazon/Oracle shut off servers, and app stores stopped distributing to US users). TikTok could choose to operate their service (like many other Chinese companies) using only non-US infra and without relying on American companies to distribute their app; indeed, the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, hosted entirely from Chinese servers, continued to work just fine. This case is also a reminder of why the iOS App Store is so bad for rights: at least on Android, you could sideload a 'banned' app; Google can comply with the law and US users can still download TikTok. On iOS, you don't have that option.
  - 2y ago

Zanni 2y ago

The ACLU hasn't been a credible defender of free speech in some time. (FIRE and EFF still credible.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yellow_postit 2y ago
I started having issues when they supported Citizens United
- Gormo 2y ago
  But the ACLU was arguing in defense of free speech there.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Had citizens united gone the other way, imagine what Trump could’ve done with Facebook and Google to ensure reelection in 2020.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      He wouldn't have had to resort to complex modes of influence, that's for sure. It's very scary that we've gotten to the point where people are claiming to "protect democracy" by proposing to allow institutions controlled by incumbent politicians to regulate who is allowed to say what in the lead-up to elections.

Aunche 2y ago

> Laws that does not explicitly curtail free speech but effectively still does You can say the same thing about an antitrust law that forces Alphabet to sell Youtube.

afiori 2y ago
If antitrust laws did not exist then making them would need a constitutional amendment

addicted 2y ago

Well they’re clearly wrong. Go read the SC unanimous judgment. It’s very clear and lays out exactly why they’re wrong. In fact they do a lot more than that because they state off the bat that there isn’t even a first amendment question (a Chinese corporation doesn’t have first amendment rights in the U.S.), but they go beyond, assume the first amendment does apply, and still explain why that isn’t valid.

michaelt 2y ago
Yeah, I can't believe all these people are talking "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" so literally. Haven't these people heard of Wickard v. Filburn?
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Tiktok definitely isn't press and algorithm-powered social media feeds can hardly be considered free speech. It's not even speech - it's broadcast! We've regulated broadcast since its' inception.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    While Tiktok doesn't have literal printing presses, neither do TV networks. How can the first amendment be interpreted so broadly that large multinational corporations financially supporting politicians is considered free speech, yet so narrowly that social media isn't part of the media?
    - pixl97 2y ago
      > large multinational corporations financially supporting politicians You do realize that Rupert Murdoch was forced to become a US citizen because of the same laws that are in question about US media ownership. Social media is 100% the media. Social media has freedom of speech. Businesses don't have freedom of ownership, including media business. Kinda fucky, but this is very long standing law.
    - deleted 2y ago

UltraSane 2y ago

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Chinese companies operating in the US.