3 ms·
And the speech repercussions are more like the entire point of the ban. It's not even about trade or security. I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this
by frollogaston 2y ago
And the speech repercussions are more like the entire point of the ban. It's not even about trade or security. I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago>"I'd be fine if they just said, we're banning this because it's from China." Some of us would understand that message, but that would be eternal fuel for a political fire. The Huawei debacle stumbled in serious opposition.
- frollogaston 2y agoAccording to the bill's sponsor, this is exactly what happened. The bill was dead until the Oct 7 Hamas attacks, then suddenly lawmakers were supporting it for speech reasons.
- pas 2y agoI recommend reading the court's decision, it goes through all the relevant facts and statutes, how they apply, and more importantly it says that even if the higher standard of scrutiny would apply it would pass the test. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-1113-2088317.pdf https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111... page 40, "The problem for TikTok is that the Government exercised its considered judgment and concluded that mitigation efforts short of divestiture were insufficient, as a TikTok declarant puts it, to mitigate “risks to acceptable levels.” "