Montana Becomes First US State To Ban TikTok (reuters.com) 135
Montana is now the first U.S. state to ban TikTok after Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed legislation to ban the app from operating in the state. Reuters reports: Montana will make it unlawful for Google and Apple's app stores to offer the TikTok app within its borders. The ban takes effect Jan. 1, 2024. TikTok, which has over 150 million American users, is facing growing calls from U.S. lawmakers and state officials to ban the app nationwide over concerns about potential Chinese government influence over the platform. Gov. Gianforte, a Republican, said the bill will further "our shared priority to protect Montanans from Chinese Communist Party surveillance."
Montana, which has a population of just over 1 million people, said TikTok could face fines for each violation and additional fines of $10,000 per day if they violate the ban. It takes effect Jan. 1, 2024. The ban will likely face numerous legal challenges that it violates the First Amendment free speech rights of users. An attempt by then President Donald Trump to ban new downloads of TikTok and WeChat through a Commerce Department order in 2020 was blocked by multiple courts and never took effect. The legislation that Gianforte signed also generally prohibits "the use of all social media applications that collect and provide personal information or data to foreign adversaries on government-issued devices," adds Reuters.
It's unclear if the bill signed today would effectively ban all social media in Montana, since most social media networks collect such information and share it with entities in foreign countries.
Montana, which has a population of just over 1 million people, said TikTok could face fines for each violation and additional fines of $10,000 per day if they violate the ban. It takes effect Jan. 1, 2024. The ban will likely face numerous legal challenges that it violates the First Amendment free speech rights of users. An attempt by then President Donald Trump to ban new downloads of TikTok and WeChat through a Commerce Department order in 2020 was blocked by multiple courts and never took effect. The legislation that Gianforte signed also generally prohibits "the use of all social media applications that collect and provide personal information or data to foreign adversaries on government-issued devices," adds Reuters.
It's unclear if the bill signed today would effectively ban all social media in Montana, since most social media networks collect such information and share it with entities in foreign countries.
Um (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point does Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 come in and smash this to pieces?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the ban applies only to government-issued devices, it doesn't.
The Commerce Clause has been absurdly wide since Wickard v. Filburn, but it's not that wide.
Re: Um (Score:2)
Montana will make it unlawful for Google and Apple's app stores to offer the TikTok app within its borders.
Re: (Score:2)
That's clearly the wrong approach. Instead of forbidding them, they should slap a very large tax on them.
Re: (Score:2)
One problem is that they don't have any clear-cut evidence that the Chinese gov't snoops in the current arrangement of the org. (They did a reorg recently.)
Second, China could retaliate and block US based sites under the same premise, creating an escalation in bans.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
China already bans all U.S. social media.
Re: Um (Score:2)
China blocked Facebook in 2008 or 2009. Others are blocked too. It seems reasonable to block any Chinese product on the same grounds.
Re: Um (Score:5, Insightful)
China does a lot of shit that only a sick fucker would call justification to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are Mod Points when I need to give them????
Can TikTok sue Montana for defamation of character?
Re: (Score:3)
Put another way: China builds up national giants in an economy of 1.3B people, whilst blocking foreign competition. Then they expect other countries to let these giants compete in their markets. This is free trade for suckers; perhaps the focus should be on global fair trade.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be believed that the US would win in the end precisely because we weren't autocratic corrupt shitwads.
At some point, that started become lost to people, and you feel that anything the "enemy" does justifies you doing it too.
Like because the enemy tortures, it's now OK for you to do it.
So no, fuck off. You're as bad as the fucking CCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking christ- have you come from upon high to demonstrate the fucking rot that is killing us all with your very existence?
You know what, you're right.
We have elected some shitheads.
Because of this, I really can't see any reason to just start electing full-blown fascists.
You've convinced me.
First into the camps is you though.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget section 8, my money is on section 10: No state shall [...] pass any bill of attainder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No Government entity removed Trump from Social Media, and the right of private entities to censor on their property is a fundamental right of man.
It's the right to free agency.
I love how people who use terms like "the left" and "the right" are invariably too fucking stupid to exist without their betters spoon feeding them.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Fox's business model during the Trump administration.
I think that it's good that we have transparency (i.e., that we know those 2 things) because it allows *us* to exercise *our* right of free agency.
But come on. You can't be so fucking stupid as to not see the distinction between Government exercise of power, and private organizations that agree with the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Bootlickers are not Government compelled censorship. They're just bootlickers.
They're exactly what you're doing right now defending the practices of Government overreach.
The problem is that people are communist sympathizers, the problem is that you're too fucking stupid to tell the difference between a Government exercising its power, and someone going out of their way to fellate the Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the distinction, apart from the execs of a private company are un-elected.
The important distinction I see is between a large organization and a small. If I kick you out of my house because I don't like you saying broccoli isn't tasty that's fine you have plenty of other avenues to express your opinion. If a company like Twitter or Google ban you and refuse business with anyone who allows you to express your opinion, that severely impacts your right to speak.
It is arguable that these large compan
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the distinction, apart from the execs of a private company are un-elected.
That's a you problem.
The distinction is whether you see it or not.
Why would the execs of a private company need to be elected in order to exercise control of their private company
The important distinction I see is between a large organization and a small. If I kick you out of my house because I don't like you saying broccoli isn't tasty that's fine you have plenty of other avenues to express your opinion. If a company like Twitter or Google ban you and refuse business with anyone who allows you to express your opinion, that severely impacts your right to speak.
No, it doesn't.
It severely impacts your right to use their platform.
You have lots of other avenues to express your opinion.
Your complaint is that you have less avenues to express your opinion in the forum you have come to think of as your own, even though it never was.
It is arguable that these large companies have more control over your expression than the government. When the constitution was written companies did not have such power and the writers probably did not consider such situation at the time.
They have no more expression over your opinion than you hav
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, it is because you are entitled and lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL the Twitter files. Interesting that only hand-picked reporters came to the pre-ordained conclusion.
You won't admit this but it's your incoherent worldview that causes you to arrive at these ridiculous conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
It shows that Twitter was soliciting the Government for political guidance.
Which Twitter is completely free to do. And the Government is completely free to give.
Just as Fox was free to do so with the Trump administration.
What I wish, is that there was more transparency on the matter.
Both the executive branch and the private sector ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless its the second ammendment. Apparently a “ well regulated militia” means that every mentally ill pissed off 18-year old guy with daddy issues gets issued an AR15, plenty of ammo, and a magazine ad encouraging him to exercise his “man card” on the nearest grade school.
In the long run, I have a lot of confidence that my country will get it right. But holy crap we’re in a dark place at the moment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the long run, I have a lot of confidence that my country will get it right. But holy crap we’re in a dark place at the moment.
+100 Insightful.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't share your confidence in the American people....
I want to, but I just can't....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:5, Informative)
There's this thing called "bodily autonomy". You can't be forced to give a kidney to a person who would die without it. What's more, they can't take it from your corpse without your prior consent, even though you're clearly not using it any more. You can't even be forced to donate a pint of blood to save a life. Even if you accept that the fetus is a full person (which I don't), why then can someone be forced to donate their body for nine months to be used as a life support machine for this other person? Especially when that use can directly lead to health problems (up to and including death in rare cases) of the "donor"? It's way, WAY more invasive than forcibly drawing a pint of blood, which is forbidden without consent.
If you decide to reply, please make an argument that doesn't boil down to "She knew the risks of having sex and she must pay the consequences." Or in other words, "She must be punished for having had sex in the first place."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please... show me where the pro-choice movement has EVER advocated for killing babies or allowing people to do so, US citizen or otherwise. There might be some fringe loonies out there somewhere advocating infanticide. But none of the mainstream women's health of family planning outfits do so.
PROTIP: Before you answer, crack open a biology book and look top the differences between embryos, zygotes, fetuses, and babies. Those four words are not synonyms.
Re: (Score:2)
According to our current supreme court, women dont get rights over their own bodies
That is not what the supreme court ruled, it said it wasn't covered by the constitution, which given it was written by a bunch of men in the 18th century, when safe abortions where probably not a thing, is the most probable interpretation.
As for rights over your own body, well all laws restrict that, don't believe me go run through your local school naked with your own body, or take drugs an tell the police, just to see if there are other laws restrict what you can do with your body.
The good laws balance ou
Cuz I don't want the blue states to get ideas (Score:1)
I'm gonna say, oppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cuz I don't want the blue states to get ideas (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I'd rather they block all social media sites and the people had the right to free speech they always have had.
The free speech we have always had includes the right to speak to other private parties without prior government restraint. Tiktok (and its users) are other private parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that literally just forbids the feds from issuing such rules. This has been interpreted as saying the states can't do so either, but that's not really a part of the 1st amendment. And I quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:3)
Post-14th Amendment is pretty clear that the States are also bound.
And I quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
This has been interpreted to mean that States are bound by the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's a reasonable interpretation. And probably one that was intended, considering when it was adopted. And also one that the railroad and telegraph probably made necessary. But it's not clear (to me) exactly how widely it should be interpreted. (And corporations aren't citizens.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just pointing out that the States are bound by the First Amendment as well.
Whether or not the Feds or the States are bound when dealing with Corporations is definitely in flux (though since about the '70s, they are)
One thing to keep in mind, is that Corporations are composed of people. I don't suspect we're going to see jurisprudence go backwards in light of that fact.
It's difficult to censor a corporation without also censoring
Re: (Score:2)
I will maintain my personal right to censor whatever the fuck I want on my private property, though.
The right of people to censor is a fundamental pillar of free agency. It's the Government that we absolutely fucking must not allow to do it, under any circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
What I *meant* to say, and I'm not sure the Government ever attempted to levy its power against COVID dissidents.
I wouldn't be surprised if elements within the Government floated their desire to do so... But I can't imagine enough of the Federal apparatus was ever mobilized to do so. That would be fucking 1984-esque.
Now, as f
Re: (Score:2)
I was pro-Mask-guidance and pro-Vaccine-guidance.
It worked to great effect here. We managed to stay below the national COVID curve, and our excess deaths due to a fucked medical system remained low because of it.
I was always firmly against treating... let's call them "COVID dissidents" with any kind of Gestapo action, and... thankfully, I didn't see any of that going on.
I fully supported the r
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder were you so adamant about 1A rights when it came Assembly during the pandemic?
I can understand your doubts, because these bitches out here want it both ways. I was completely consistent the entire time right up to this moment. I was raising hell to anyone who would listen that censorship of scientists by other scientists and the few bits of truthful media was ridiculous, criminal, and frankly rising to the level that deserves active violent resistance. I was also disgusted at how these pussies who talk about "democracy" could just suspend citizen input whenever they wished and turn o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think foreign nationals should have the access the media they have. I also think the preamble says "to our selves and our posterity" which means the entire rest of the document should be applied to citizens. I don't think non-citizens especially non-citizens physically out side the USA are entitled to anything Bill of Rights protections from our government, save those their own can secure them by force or treaty.
So I am perfectly fine simply barring bytedance from the USA. No twisting about it.
Re: (Score:2)
America needs a great firewall!
Strike me down, and your journey to the dark side will be complete.
You have become that which you hate. And you're too fucking stupid to see it.
When I was younger, I thought the architects of fascism were probably highly intelligent.
Today I see it's a natural consequence of human fucking stupidity.
I might be moving to Montana soon... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thought of the same thing lol Thanks for this
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Raisin' it up.
Waxin' it down.
I'm with the government, (Score:1)
And they are going to enforce this how? (Score:2)
People can use the website version
Nothing to prevent people who have the app installed outside the state
Proxies... and so many different things will make a successful ban really difficult
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't trying to ban it. If they were actually trying to ban it, they would have outlawed its use. (So if your computer ever ended up in LE's hands, and they found a browser tab with it open, or an Android/iOS "app" installed, they would have a basis to prosecute you.)
They just want to stick it to Apple and Google (companies that everyone hates, so they can be used in place of the usual four horsemen), and set a "new normal" that it's ok for intrusive government to micromanage software. It doesn't have
"On government-issued devices" (Score:3, Insightful)
So the restriction is not on the social networks, it's a ban on using social networks that share personal data on government-issued devices.
That's actually a pretty clear government interest.
Re:"On government-issued devices" (Score:4, Informative)
So the restriction is not on the social networks, it's a ban on using social networks that share personal data on government-issued devices.
That's actually a pretty clear government interest.
No sir. This imposes a ban on app stores offering the app within the borders of Montana, on any device. However, their sneaky out is that there is no penalty for loading the app on non-government devices by side-loading it.
Re: "On government-issued devices" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: "On government-issued devices" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Both the summary and TFA say: "Montana will make it unlawful for Google and Apple's app stores to offer the TikTok app within its borders.". that sounds a lot more like a blanket ban than a TikTok ban on government-issued devices only. Furthermore, The Verge reports [theverge.com] that: The bill, SB 419, prohibits TikTok from operating “within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana” and demands mobile app stores make the app unavailable for Montana residents.. What's going to be interesting is whether SCOTUS
Re: (Score:3)
The bill does 2 things:
1) Prohibits the distribution of the application on phone "App Stores"
2) Prohibits the installation on Government devices.
1 is almost unquestionably unconstitutional, and just a way to stoke the flames of a base of voters who couldn't care less.
2 is perfectly legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on both counts.
And as noted elsewhere, Android users at least can side-load it. Not sure about Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in that article, but is mentioned in the last paragraph here - https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17... [cnn.com]
Spoiler...it was a separate bill he signed.
Montana has no idea how enforce any of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Montana has no idea how enforce any of this (Score:5, Funny)
This might be the thing that finally motivates the young to vote.
Wtf happened to Montana (Score:2)
It used to be a libertarian state where people could build their own compound fiefdoms. It seems lately they have devolved into authoritarianism.
Re:Wtf happened to Montana (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians are just republicans that don’t want to pay taxes. Actual libertarians should be asking why the government cares what genitals a person has or what drugs a person wants to consume, or why the government is telling teachers what they can teach, what books a library can carry, why the government cares if a person wears funny clothes, or why a company puts a rainbow on a beer can.
Re: (Score:2)
libertarians who achieve power tend to become authoritarians. Libertarians are already authoritarians, hiding their hypocrisy under "idealistic" verbiage. (Note the difference in capitalization.)
I sometimes wonder what anarchists that achieve power would become. However there are so many different flavors of anarchist that there's probably no unified answer....except, perhaps, incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Please move to Montana.
Laws targeted at a single person or corporation (Score:5, Informative)
are a terrible idea. This practice is really antithetical to the concept of the rule of law, which is described in the Wikipedia article admirably succinctly:
The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws...
Insofar as TikTok is doing something wrong, it is those things that should be outlawed. Instead, this law *literally* is written to apply *only* to TikTok. If you look at the text [mt.gov] the essentially is the Montana legislature indicting ByteDance for doing things it doesn't like, and then sentencing them, in effect acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. Unlike a proper conviction obtained in a court of law, ByteDance cannot confront its accusers, dispute the accusations made against it, or offer exculpatory evidence. In fact evidence doesn't come into this one way or the other; there's just the accusation and the sentence.
Even if every allegation in the bill were true, singling out one company raises deep constitutional concerns. And I strongly suspect this law may be unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10 [constitutioncenter.org] of the US Constitution. It may even raise 14th Amendment equal protection concerns.
I have similar concerns with the law Florida passed to reorganize the Reedy Creek Improvement District. While I think the state absolutely has the right to pass laws defining and regulation such districts, the law was carefully written so that it only applied to Disney and could only *ever* apply to Disney. And it's also clear that this was retaliation against Disney for constitutionally protected speech.
If laws like these are allowed to stand, we will enter a new Constitutional era in which state legislatures can target anyone for doing anything that displeases them, without having to prove anything or holding people they favor to the same standards. And it won't just be red states; blue states will surely go after gun manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on precisely what the goal is and how the law is phrased. I'm quite willing t believe that this law is a bad one, and possibly an unconstitutional (under the precedents of the Supreme Court) law. (Not under the literal words of the Constitution, as that barely restricts state governments at all.)
OTOH, if only one company is doing some particular heinous action, then a law against that action is not wrong just because it targets that company. Parts of this law look like they're trying to appl
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not. Not true.
You can read the full text of the ban right here: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/... [mt.gov]
The title of the bill is "AN ACT BANNING TIKTOK IN MONTANA".
Opening sentence of Section 1: "Tiktok may not operate within the territorial jurisdiction of Montana"
In this documen
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that article 1 section 10 really applies here. They aren't placing a cost on the import of merchandise.
I was referring to Clause 1, not 2, specifically the prohibition on states passing bills of attainder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not under the literal words of the Constitution, as that barely restricts state governments at all
This is flatly untrue post-14th Amendment.
There's no question they're also running afoul of Article 1 prohibitions.
As mentioned elsewhere... This is a constitutional shitshow.
This is fodder for a voting base that couldn't care less. And that should worry people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the shit Emperor DeSantis is trying to pull in FL is at least thinly veiled, even if that veil falls apart at even a cursory glance.
Re: (Score:2)
If laws like these are allowed to stand, we will enter a new Constitutional era in which state legislatures can target anyone for doing anything that displeases them, without having to prove anything or holding people they favor to the same standards. And it won't just be red states; blue states will surely go after gun manufacturers.
Concise, Correct and Erudite.
Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, this law *literally* is written to apply *only* to TikTok. If you look at the text [mt.gov] the essentially is the Montana legislature indicting ByteDance for doing things it doesn't like, and then sentencing them, in effect acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. Unlike a proper conviction obtained in a court of law, ByteDance cannot confront its accusers, dispute the accusations made against it, or offer exculpatory evidence.
So all TikTok has to do is change its name and then the law doesn't apply. Sounds like an easy fix.
Banning is not enough (Score:2)
TikTok Feeds Teens a Diet of Darkness (Score:2)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t... [wsj.com]
Self-harm, sad-posting and disordered-eating videos abound on the popular app
PIck one, please. (Score:3)
On one hand, governments say Apple should regulate what apps can be installed and where, under penalty of law.
On the other, governments say Apple is a walled garden monopoly that should be regulated
because people are not free to sideload anything they wish, anytime, anywhere.
So, which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, governments say Apple should regulate what apps can be installed and where, under penalty of law.
On the other, governments say Apple is a walled garden monopoly that should be regulated
because people are not free to sideload anything they wish, anytime, anywhere.
So, which is it?
Precisely!
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly designed to be struck down. (Score:2)
As per usual, Republicans take Chinese cash while posturing as guardians against them. Meanwhile they don't even hide their fondness for the Kremlin.
But now how are they going to educate (Score:2)
Good. !!! (Score:2)
bad (Score:2)
This is bad law, and sets a terrible precedent. Will Calif ban the Fox News app?
TikTok is bad only because it is owned by the Chinese and can be controlled by CCP. The correct approach is that on a federal level, the TikTok must be spun off into a wholly owned US company, or stop operating in the US. It has been long a policy of US law (since 1930s) to limit foreign ownership of media companies.
So .... nothing then .... (Score:2)
If you have the app, nothing happens ...and China is not as far as I am aware a "foreign adversary" ...
If you download the app out of state then nothing happens
If you download the app over VPN nothing happens
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Competitors comply and get a leg in the US market. Then spread elsewhere. Suddenly, more competition.
This is the same reason why Microsoft really prefers you'd pirate windows and office than go to linux and libreoffice. As long as you use their products even if you're violating their copyright, their competitors have a hard time demonstrating to public at large that they're viable.
Re: (Score:2)
There were 100 million iPhones sold in the US last year.
Montana is like some developing country with an average income 10% below the US norm and a GDP that ranks 48 out of 50. I suspect people there canâ(TM)t even afford an iPhone. I donâ(TM)t think they even have an Apple Store.
So shouldnâ(TM)t Apple just stop servicing Montana. It wonâ(TM)t cost them a thing.
There is at least one independent Authorized(?) Apple Dealer/Service Center, and a couple of Best Buys with mini-Apple Stores (and probably Walmart sells some stuff, along with any cell carrier-stores); but AFAICT, no Apple Retail Stores, per se.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't be the only one who got that uncanny sense of irony when reading about a ban in the name of freEDOOOM!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is also a lot about a red state attempting to assert that it has more jurisdiction here than the federal government. Also, it's a vote getter - never let a bad law get in the way of gathering up voters. If it gets overturned in courts then you gather up even more voters who are upset that the courts don't defer to the legislatures.
Now, if it's just Montana government devices, that's ok, they can control the devices used by their own government employees while on the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they interpret "freedom" as "I get to do whatever I want and not face any consequences."
So if they want to ban something, they have the "freedom" to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution was written in large part to ensure that nothing would be done without a broad consensus INCLUDING (and indeed slightly over-representing) states that were predominately rural.
Montanans have the same right to govern themselves as anyone else, although, like everyone else, they lack the right to pass bills of attainder or to prohibit free speech.
Not really about TikTok (Score:2)
It's intentional red meat for right wing droolers. No more, no less. It's designed to keep them riled up, just like the gender fearmongering, anti-gay idiocy, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, budget posturing, and so on. When this fades (and it will, social media issues are nothing if not ephemeral), they'll create new foci for the same purpose. Ad infinitum. It's all they have to offer while they busily fluff the rich and corporate entities they actuall