3 ms·

The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content but it's not a 1st Amendment issue? Why are people buying this lame argument?

pixl97 2y ago
Because the people 250 years ago could not have imagined the problems that we'd have invented for ourselves in these days. It was always meant to be a living document with a process of adding and changing amendments. And in between that time the the way people interact has grown more complex. If you took those same intelligent men and dropped them into today, the Amendments would look different.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  If only they made a process to change it…
  - kelnos 2y ago
    Good luck amending the constitution these days. We can't even pass an amendment that says that women have the same rights as men. An amendment process that in practice is impossible to exercise is just as good as having no amendment process at all.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      That’s not an excuse for circumventing it, obviously.
josephcsible 2y ago
Because it's not the content but rather the company behind it. The exact same .apk would be allowed if ByteDance divested.
kelnos 2y ago
> The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content No, and no one is saying they can. The law says American companies can't do business with a certain foreign-owned company. It is beyond settled in law that this is something that the US government can do.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  It’s not a certain company, it’s a whole class of them (partially defined by POTUS’ whims) Sure, the government can do that, and when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information, it introduces First Amendment questions that must be addressed. “The government says CNN can’t post stories from BBC” isn’t immediately resolved by “it’s a foreign company.”
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information But this doesn't do that. Everything that Americans could post or watch on TikTok, they're still allowed to post or watch anywhere else.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Just like everything that a reader might find in NYTimes, they could also find on Fox News!
      - josephcsible 2y ago
        It sounds like you're saying that there's some content on TikTok that Instagram Reels/YouTube Shorts/etc. won't allow on their platforms. Is that correct? If so, can you give an example?
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Since when is that the test? Is the government allowed to shut down Harvard because the same classes can be taken at ASU?

pixl97 2y ago

Because the people 250 years ago could not have imagined the problems that we'd have invented for ourselves in these days. It was always meant to be a living document with a process of adding and changing amendments. And in between that time the the way people interact has grown more complex. If you took those same intelligent men and dropped them into today, the Amendments would look different.

llamaimperative 2y ago
If only they made a process to change it…
- kelnos 2y ago
  Good luck amending the constitution these days. We can't even pass an amendment that says that women have the same rights as men. An amendment process that in practice is impossible to exercise is just as good as having no amendment process at all.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    That’s not an excuse for circumventing it, obviously.

josephcsible 2y ago

Because it's not the content but rather the company behind it. The exact same .apk would be allowed if ByteDance divested.

kelnos 2y ago

> The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content No, and no one is saying they can. The law says American companies can't do business with a certain foreign-owned company. It is beyond settled in law that this is something that the US government can do.

llamaimperative 2y ago
It’s not a certain company, it’s a whole class of them (partially defined by POTUS’ whims) Sure, the government can do that, and when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information, it introduces First Amendment questions that must be addressed. “The government says CNN can’t post stories from BBC” isn’t immediately resolved by “it’s a foreign company.”
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information But this doesn't do that. Everything that Americans could post or watch on TikTok, they're still allowed to post or watch anywhere else.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Just like everything that a reader might find in NYTimes, they could also find on Fox News!
    - josephcsible 2y ago
      It sounds like you're saying that there's some content on TikTok that Instagram Reels/YouTube Shorts/etc. won't allow on their platforms. Is that correct? If so, can you give an example?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Since when is that the test? Is the government allowed to shut down Harvard because the same classes can be taken at ASU?