Trump's TikTok Ban Temporarily Blocked by US Judge (forbes.com) 85
Forbes reports that TikTok "cannot be shut down in the United States next month, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday afternoon, the latest setback in President Donald Trump's push to force the Chinese-owned app to be transferred to American ownership."
In an August executive order that labeled TikTok a national security threat, Trump required Beijing-based tech company ByteDance to sell its popular short-form video app to an American firm by Nov. 12, or else the federal government would enforce restrictions on data transfers that effectively make the app unusable. Pennsylvania Judge Wendy Beetlestone blocked that order Friday, issuing a preliminary injunction while the court considers a lawsuit brought by several TikTok content creators.
Beetlestone said Trump probably doesn't have the power to block TikTok: he tried to force a sale using a 43-year-old law that gives him broad power over international transactions that pose threats to national security, but that law exempts "informational materials" like artwork and news, a category Beetlestone said includes TikTok videos...
The U.S. Department of Commerce plans to comply with Beetlestone's injunction, but it will "vigorously defend" Trump's executive order from this legal challenge, a spokesperson told Forbes.
Beetlestone said Trump probably doesn't have the power to block TikTok: he tried to force a sale using a 43-year-old law that gives him broad power over international transactions that pose threats to national security, but that law exempts "informational materials" like artwork and news, a category Beetlestone said includes TikTok videos...
The U.S. Department of Commerce plans to comply with Beetlestone's injunction, but it will "vigorously defend" Trump's executive order from this legal challenge, a spokesperson told Forbes.
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Insightful)
If they feel there are backdoors (which could very well be), simply ban any government official from using Tik Tok on any device that also is used for work.
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right. Seems to me that this judge is for the rule of law and recognizes that the law being cited had specific restrictions that were being ignored. These are the checks and balances of government, working as intended, the same as when the courts said that if the DoJ wanted to drop the charges against Cohen, they’d be allowed to, even though he had twice admitted his guilt in court and was moving forward to sentencing. Justice may not have been done, but the rule of law was followed.
Re: (Score:1)
the same as when the courts said that if the DoJ wanted to drop the charges against Cohen
Do you mean Flynn?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I did. I named the wrong Michael. Thanks for the correction!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Given how he's baselessly used the same allegations of "national security" to overstep his authority multiple times in the past just to get what he wanted (he apparently has a very small playbook), it's a fairly safe bet that there isn't one, and this is just Trump using what basically amounts to a legal loophole in authority granted to the executive branch to get whatever the president wants to happen, even if th
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you feel threatened by Canada?
You should. It's the only country that successfully invaded the United States, and burned down the White House!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was Upper Canada and Lower Canada at the time. Another 25 odd years before the 2 colonies were united.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada did not invade the USA, the USA attempted to take Canada.
The attempt did not go well for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Britain did a lot of things to provoke America, as relations at the time were as terrible as you would expect. Trying to impede American trade with France, as Britain and France were at war. Forcibly conscripted American citizens into service in the British navy based on some rather flimsy legal excuse (Requiring proof of American citizenship, but also deeming all documents proving citizenship to be invalid). Encouraging native tribes to harass the American frontier. Nothing that could be const
Re: (Score:2)
The Americans also tried to invade Canada during the revolution, that also didn't go well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do have all those cows. Maybe he was frightened by the thoughts of a stampede. Then again he's frightened by his own shadow, so this is clearly a National Defense Strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, he actually admitted that he was instituting the tariffs to pressure Canada into making more concessions for the updated free trade agreement.
It worked.
It sets a bad precedent, one that is likely to haunt the USA with regards to international trade policy for generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you hear that most Canadians are of the opinion that Canada "won" that negotiation? The USMCA is a "win" for Canada only in that it was better for Canada than the alternative it would have otherwise faced, which was the threat of being excluded from the new trade agreement entirely.
Also, trade isn't supposed to be zero sum, so the notion of "winning" or "losing" is largely irrelevant. It's supposed to be mutually beneficial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dairy controls weren't lifted entirely, but they were eased.
But as far as I know, the bigger issue for Canada was in the realm of automobile manufacturing. In particular, the new requirements that the USMCA imposes on the amount of parts that must be from North America to qualify for the trade agreement were raised by 12%, which disproportionately disadvantages the less wealthy countries which are coming from having a lower production capacity in the first place. It's not an insurmountable hurdle, o
Re: (Score:3)
This is the result of a Justice Department sunk into corruption by the alleged administration.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Common sense might involve taking a closer look at a phone app controlled by a Communist dictatorship that has access to the most intimate details of your citizens lives?
Imagine if the Trump Administration had that common sense and treated it like you describe instead of trying to get back at Tik-Tok because some of its users pulled off a humuliating prank.
Competence might say that's a national security concern.
FTFY.
Trump supporters: Please reply. (Score:3)
Two of today's articles about Trump:
18 Trump rallies have led to 30,000 COVID-19 cases: Stanford University study [thehill.com].
Trump makes baseless claims about pandemic in final stretch as Covid cases rise [cnn.com].
I wish Trump supporters would answer some of the negative stories about Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
The intimate details of American teenagers? Damn, think of the consequences for Xi Jinping. Why, he could get them all to rebel en masse against Hollywood and acne.
No, not under the law (Score:1)
No, under the law if China wants to operate in the United States, the president does NOT have prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each thing China wants to do is a risk.
By the law, under 721(d) the president can unilaterally find that any covered transaction (TID) is a risk and take appropriate action, including divesture.
Rather than doing that, as he could have, when Schumer demanded action against ByteDance the president sent it over to CFIUS, the commission which does such investigations and makes a rec
Re:No, not under the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious you have no legal training.
Beyond a reasonable doubt type proof is a standard normally used in criminal cases.
This case is more about First Amendment rights. When constitutional rights are being threatened, strict scrutiny is applied, and the government has to provide evidence, and some nebulous concept of "national security" simply isn't going to cut it. There were obviously ways of "narrowly tailoring" the restrictions, with the "least restrictive" means of achieving the purpose but Trump decided to try using a hammer to solve the issue.
Re:No, not under the law (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) It wasn't even a "US company". Musically was a company registered in the Cayman Islands. It was created by a Shanghai company, headquartered in Shanghai, and had a "US office".
(2) Due process must be done.
(3) The injunction isn't about selling the company, or even forcing selling the company although that may be an issue also under 5th Amendment rights.
(4) The injunction is about the right for e.g. users, or google to provide the software, and users to download and use the software, post their videos, and not have the servers shut down. So yes, it's about First Amendment rights.
Re: (Score:1)
I understand you disagree with the law, you wish the law was different. That's fine. Obviously, it doesn't change what the law *is*.
Musical.ly was owned by:
DCM Ventures (San Francisco)
GGV (San Francisco)
Qiming (Shanghai)
Greylock (San Francisco)
The law is that a majority US-owned entity (such as musical.ly), operating in the United States, being sold to foreigners is a covered transaction. I know that's not how you would have written the law. I guess you wouldn't have written that if the US owners register
Re: (Score:1)
Ps, if you don't like the law, it passed the House with a vote of 423 to 0 and by unanimous consent in the Senate, so you can blame it on - every legislator.
If you don't like that it was applied to Tik Tok, here's how that happened:
https://youtu.be/DPpYItDxMqU [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
What type of BS loaded assumptions are you trying to construct. I never stated anything about a liking or a disliking for CFIUS.
Again. You have NO freaking clue. What does partial ownership have to do with where a company is registered, and whether a company is a US owned entity or not without establishing more. If I own single share of some foreign company, being a US citizen doesn't automatically mean that the company is automatically a US company. Did you show the share structure? Did you establish
Re: (Score:2)
> What does partial ownership have to do with where a company is registered, and whether a company is a US owned entity or not entity or not
You're asking "what does ownership have to do with ... whether a company is a US owned entity or not"?
Well see if it's owned mostly by US persons, that's the definition of a majority US-owned corporation. Which is then a covered transaction when it's sold to a foreign interest.
> If I own single share of some foreign company
No, a single share would not be majorit
Re: (Score:2)
PS, the way a motion for a temporary injunction is decided is based on *which party has the most to lose* before the trial is over, NOT who is most likely to win.
Suppose for example my dog is sick and I decide to have her put to sleep. You file suit asking to prevent that, on whatever argument. Maybe we used to be roommates and you're arguing that because of that we were common-law married (gay marriage is now legal) and so it's your dog too. You file for a temporary injunction preventing me from having th
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the first amendment says China can buy any US company that they want to?
Freedom of Speech. And if you ask how that's possible then I will suggest you read the articles more often than you are right now.
Re: (Score:2)
pro-China? How about pro-common sense. I have never used Tik Tok and believe the premise and the content adds almost no value to society.. but shouldn't the Trump administration have to provide proof that it is a threat to national security?
Still waiting for the Tiktok video of Trump doing the Laffy Taffy dance.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah Grasshopper, ancient Shaolin saying: when teenagers fool Whiner-in-Chief, Chinese company have problems.
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Informative)
Or maybe a pro free-market judgment. Trump attempted to act like a mafia boss selecting winners and losers based on how well he thinks he was treated... in the case of Tik-Tok well you know.
Now if you want to see some pro-China comments from our current President you could go here...
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Insightful)
And she just made a pro-China judgement.
Maybe she just made a pro-law-and-order judgment.
Re:Wendy Beetlestone (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares who appointed her or whether the judgement is pro or against China or whatever? The question is whether the judgement is sound or not.
The summary claims that the law Trump used as basis to ban TikTok cannot be applied: is that correct or not? Who is favored by the decision should be irrelevant in that determination.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a surprise at all.
Judge Carl J. Nichols, also placed an injunction and he was appointed by Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
And she just made a pro-China judgement. What a surprise!
Heh. She actually made a pro 1st Amendment judgement that the revenge-seeking Trump Administration handed Tik-Tok on a silver platter.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the first time... won't be the last. (Score:3)
He continually oversteps his authority on alleged "national security" grounds. It is reassuring to see that he is *FINALLY* being blocked on this, not so much because I care what happens with TikTok, but because it gives me some hope for a reasonable response when he doubtlessly tries to use the same allegation of "national security" in 3 days to manipulate himself into being the winner of the election, regardless of actual vote count.
I'm almost afraid to hope, however. He's pulled this stunt so many times already during his presidency inappropriately and has continued to get away with it, that I honestly can't say I that even this glimmer of hope has changed my expectations.
But it's still hope. And that's still a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
He continually oversteps his authority on alleged "national security" grounds.
Yep. On a related note, Obama had two American citizens, including a teenager, murdered in drone strikes on similarly flimsy grounds. The Al-Awlakis weren't ever so much as indicted, let alone convicted of a capital crime, but Obama didn't give a shit. I remember him claiming that a couple of white house shysters jawboning for a few hours over whether they could get away with it constituted "due process".
If Obama were running for President, this might be a relevant comment.
Note that Donald Trump ordered the strike that killed the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar Al-Awlaki (ref [wikipedia.org]), who was also a US citizen. Granted, that was "collateral damage", but at least I'm commenting on - you know - the subject of this story ...
Re: (Score:2)
Putting aside any bias which might be present in the above comment, in ethical philosophy, the above reasoning would be called the "unethical precedent", and is frequently predicated on the assumption that impropriety in the past somehow justifies or excuses any present or ongoing impropriety. Otherwise, it is simply an uninvited attempt to divert attention from ongoing impropriety in the present to focus on alleged impropriety in the past.
It is a red herring. A misconception at best, and outright fall
Re: (Score:2)
His authority under 721(d) is pretty broad (Score:3, Informative)
The president's authority under 721(d) is pretty friggin broad, when it comes to covered transactions (TIDs). The law is that of the president finds there is a likelihood that the transaction by a foreign power is a risk, that decision is non-appealable.
One of very few exceptions is written or artistic media, information. Here TikTok is arguing that basically ByteDance is like a painting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
What presidents actually do, but don't have to, is send it over to CFIUS. Rather than spending a couple of weeks of their own time investigating the situation personally. The committee investigates, and the president follows their recommendation.
In this case once ByteDance violated the terms of the original acquisition, I'm.not surprised the committee decided they'd had enough of ByteDance. Especially with the minority leader of the Senate pushing for enforcement against ByteDance.
Re: (Score:2)
> An actual link thats relevant.
This link is relevant to your demand:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Tales... [reddit.com]
Even though you're being a self-entitled asshole, I will give a hint where you can find links to the relevant legal documents - Google ByteDance CFIUS. You'll probably find not only the original terms, but Schumer's exposition on how ByteDance immediately violating those terms is just about the clearest case one could have for 721(d) action - a Chinese company has just told the US government to suck it,
It's all over then (Score:2, Funny)
By the time this decision can be overturned our national security will have been completely destroyed by TikTok's devastating short dance clips.
Re: (Score:1)
The regime (CCP) is cold and calculating. People are just numbers and nothing more. I don't think you want the rest of the world to emulate that.
Re: (Score:1)
Tik Tok Hurt his feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
His Tik Tok ban is solely a result of the k-pop crew embarrassing him in his super spreader Tulsa event. Millions of ticket reserved, only a few thousand people there. It hurt his fee-fees, and he can't tolerate it.
Three is good reason to have a debate about the net value of Tik Tok, just like al social media. It is not however an issue of China, as China can buy all the data it wants from Facebook, Google, the NRA, the state of California. Tik Tok does not give it any advantage more or less than any other social media.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to believe that as well but that doesn't explain why he is attempting to do the same thing to WeChat. After more thought, his motivations are more likely to shut down all forms of communication that are not directly controlled by U.S. companies and are therefore harder to use government powers to access the data. What is even scarier is that forcing TikTok to be under control of Oracle (yes, I k
Dying (Score:1)
does that law also apply to the outgoing data? (Score:3)
does that law also apply to the outgoing data during signups of new users?
blocking outgoing data from their app focuses the issue on the actual threat, that China could be acquiring information about US citizens. they can run tests of the app to see where the info goes if they change the addresses. they already have the data of existing users. so what if existing users can continue to exchange videolets. no security issue there if they are getting new data from signups.
and no, i am not one of their users.
"Trump banned from TikTok?" (Score:3)
How many of us saw the headline and thought that's what the article was about (and then with a shrug, found it unsurprising)?
Re:Very Tired (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the judges are very tired of the administration continually trying to do illegal things.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is protecting the country ever illegal?
Is a country without laws even worth protecting?
Why even have a constitution?
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." didn't go so well for the last guy who tried...
Judges gonna judge. Trolls gonna troll. It's just what they do.
Re: Very Tired (Score:2)
"Law and order", except when it's inconvenient.
Destructive law is not law. (Score:2)