4 ms·
They ban American companies from distributing or maintaining the application, not specific content. More of a "criminal conspiracy" type of behavior rather than
by 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.
- llamaimperative 2y agoThe application itself is content from the POV of the Constitution. Universal City Studios v Corley
- absolutelastone 2y ago"Content" is narrower than "speech". In that case the restriction was described as "content-neutral". Hence it didn't require strict scrutiny, only intermediate scrutiny. Which seems like the blueprint for how they wrote the TikTok law.