7 ms·

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 be

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
      [deleted]
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Oh I agree. Citizen United was wrongly decided, and the only people who agree with it are those who benefit from the corruption it has enabled. It's far from settled law, though obviously it's not changing in the next 4 years. As for social media - it's an advertising platform. The algorithm is deciding what you see based on what sells ads. Who is exercising free speech there? Tiktok and Meta are exercising corporate speech in the name of profit making. They have no right to host such a platform, and the government certainly has the right to regulate it if they do have one. The government can't compel Meta, Tiktok or individual users to say X, Y, or Z, they can declare the ads-based algorithmic-content business model illegal or subject it to strict regulation - especially when its in the furtherance of free speech, like preventing Facebook from deplatforming people for having the wrong opinions that advertisers don't like.
  - Kamq 2y ago
    We only regulated broadcast using the public airwaves. That's why cable TV is generally exempt.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
SCOTUS, as they've done in many recent cases, is artfully skirting the substance of the issue. How is this ban actually enforced? By fining American companies for serving specific content. That is the First Amendment issue. SCOTUS simply asserting that it's not in order to make their ruling convenient does not actually make it so.
- gsibble 2y ago
  There's all kinds of content that you can get fined for hosting. Pirated movies for instance. Is that also free speech? Again, it's just the law and how it is enforced.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Copyright (in the US) was literally created by the same people who wrote the 1st Amendment. Copyright is in the Constitution itself. It was very obviously an exception from the start. "Foreign governments saying things" also existed at the same time the 1st Amendment was written, and there were no carveouts from 1st Amendment in light of that. In any case: If SCOTUS during its early cases on copyright law (or copyright on the Internet) simply asserted "this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment," they'd also be wrong. That would be a clear avoidance tactic not to wrangle with the substantive issue. In reality, the big cases on copyright are riddled with 1st Amendment questions, considerations, and constraints.
- absolutelastone 2y ago
  They ban American companies from distributing or maintaining the application, not specific content. More of a "criminal conspiracy" type of behavior rather than something that would relate to wikileaks or whoever. Can as well argue what is being banned is the data-collection side of the operation since it's the part that depends on using the app. Those companies still have the freedom to publicly state whatever the CCP has to say. The law indeed needed to be carefully written to "skirt" any first amendment violations, and SCOTUS unanimously agreed it had done so successfully.
  - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 2y ago
I don't think that is clear at all. Refer to their amicus brief where they explain their reasoning in detail: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-writ-certiorari-tiktok-v-garland https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-wr... The gist of it, which you missed, is that they think the ban violates Americans first amendment rights.

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
    [deleted]
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Oh I agree. Citizen United was wrongly decided, and the only people who agree with it are those who benefit from the corruption it has enabled. It's far from settled law, though obviously it's not changing in the next 4 years. As for social media - it's an advertising platform. The algorithm is deciding what you see based on what sells ads. Who is exercising free speech there? Tiktok and Meta are exercising corporate speech in the name of profit making. They have no right to host such a platform, and the government certainly has the right to regulate it if they do have one. The government can't compel Meta, Tiktok or individual users to say X, Y, or Z, they can declare the ads-based algorithmic-content business model illegal or subject it to strict regulation - especially when its in the furtherance of free speech, like preventing Facebook from deplatforming people for having the wrong opinions that advertisers don't like.
- Kamq 2y ago
  We only regulated broadcast using the public airwaves. That's why cable TV is generally exempt.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

llamaimperative 2y ago

SCOTUS, as they've done in many recent cases, is artfully skirting the substance of the issue. How is this ban actually enforced? By fining American companies for serving specific content. That is the First Amendment issue. SCOTUS simply asserting that it's not in order to make their ruling convenient does not actually make it so.

gsibble 2y ago
There's all kinds of content that you can get fined for hosting. Pirated movies for instance. Is that also free speech? Again, it's just the law and how it is enforced.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Copyright (in the US) was literally created by the same people who wrote the 1st Amendment. Copyright is in the Constitution itself. It was very obviously an exception from the start. "Foreign governments saying things" also existed at the same time the 1st Amendment was written, and there were no carveouts from 1st Amendment in light of that. In any case: If SCOTUS during its early cases on copyright law (or copyright on the Internet) simply asserted "this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment," they'd also be wrong. That would be a clear avoidance tactic not to wrangle with the substantive issue. In reality, the big cases on copyright are riddled with 1st Amendment questions, considerations, and constraints.
absolutelastone 2y ago
They ban American companies from distributing or maintaining the application, not specific content. More of a "criminal conspiracy" type of behavior rather than something that would relate to wikileaks or whoever. Can as well argue what is being banned is the data-collection side of the operation since it's the part that depends on using the app. Those companies still have the freedom to publicly state whatever the CCP has to say. The law indeed needed to be carefully written to "skirt" any first amendment violations, and SCOTUS unanimously agreed it had done so successfully.
- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bjourne 2y ago

I don't think that is clear at all. Refer to their amicus brief where they explain their reasoning in detail: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-writ-certiorari-tiktok-v-garland https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/brief-amici-curiae-wr... The gist of it, which you missed, is that they think the ban violates Americans first amendment rights.