TikTok Is Suing Montana Over Law Banning the App In the State (engadget.com) 71
According to the Wall Street Journal, TikTok filed a lawsuit against Montana claiming the state's law banning the app violates the First Amendment. Engadget reports: "Montana's ban abridges freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment, violates the U.S. Constitution in multiple other respects, and is preempted by federal law," the lawsuit reads. The law prohibits the ByteDance-owned platform from operating in the state, as well as preventing Apple's and Google's app stores from listing the TikTok app for download. Although it isn't clear how Montana plans to enforce the ban, it states that violations will tally fines of $10,000 per day. However, individual TikTok users won't be charged.
The lawsuit comes just days after a group of content creators sued the state for similar reasons. "Montana has no authority to enact laws advancing what it believes should be the United States' foreign policy or its national security interests, nor may Montana ban an entire forum for communication based on its perceptions that some speech shared through that forum, though protected by the First Amendment, is dangerous," the suit states. "Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes."
Re: (Score:1)
Multiple states have been successfully banning or restricting access to pornography on similar grounds for decades. Utah recently enacted a curfew for social media use among minors, and a hard requirement for age verification on pornographic sites. Adding to that, Bytedance doesn't have any constitutional rights to free speech, being non-citizens. I'm not necessarily saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Adding to that, Bytedance doesn't have any constitutional rights to free speech, being non-citizens. I'm not necessarily saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.
That's legal horseshit. Do you know if their US operations are running through a US-based subsidiary company for US-based operations and taxing or not?
My guess is that they are, because that's exactly how every single multi-national works. In which case, they are a US company with all the rights afforded to US corporations, even if their parent company is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet ByteDance continues to funnel user data to their servers in China. Are the custodians of those servers asserting their right to free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15... [cnn.com]
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/2... [cnbc.com]
And fuck Meta. We'll deal with them in due time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The spying isn't the problem.
The REAL problem is that they can easily promote or demote content against the USA's national interest.
eg. If they want to promote self harm or anorexia videos to teen girls, they can (to use a famous example).
Can China influence USA elections at the push of a button? You betcha.
Re:Antifascists should be hoping for a win. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The REAL problem is that they can easily promote or demote content against the USA's national interest.
You mean like when the new owner of Twitter used it as his personal megaphone to tell people how they should vote in the most recent mid-term elections? [twitter.com]
All large media companies wield significant influence over political discourse, and I honestly can't think of how you'd rein that in without running afoul of the 1A. Perhaps actually it's for the best not to have a "Ministry of Truth", as such power would inevitably succumb to corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like when the new owner of Twitter used it as his personal megaphone to tell people how they should vote in the most recent mid-term elections? [twitter.com]
Not like that, no.
More in a sneaky, submarine way than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on whether they could end-run app restrictions at the OS level, they could also use the app to soak up sensitive information.
Also, some clueless users may voluntarily expose sensitive information as content. See: Discord contractor fiasco.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Antifascists should be hoping for a win. (Score:2)
Not in the US, not my problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Adding to that, Bytedance doesn't have any constitutional rights to free speech, being non-citizens.
The users, however, are American citizens with free speech rights. The government has no right to come along and yank your soapbox out from under you because it happened to be manufactured in China.
Re: Antifascists should be hoping for a win. (Score:2)
"We want freedom except for those that piss us off."
Anywhay this is more "think of the children" slop that does not work in reality or a global internet.
Re: Antifascists should be hoping for a win. (Score:1)
> Adding to that, Bytedance doesn't have any constitutional rights to free speech, being non-citizens.
Are you sure about that? What makes you that the US constitution does not apply also to non-citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple states have been successfully banning or restricting access to pornography on similar grounds for decades. Utah recently enacted a curfew for social media use among minors, and a hard requirement for age verification on pornographic sites.
There are laws and precedents on pornography. TikTok is a company. In fact courts have struck down what seems to be an example of prior restraint [cornell.edu].
Adding to that, Bytedance doesn't have any constitutional rights to free speech, being non-citizens. I'm not necessarily saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.
That is categorically false [lawyers.com]. While citizens have rights that noncitizens do not have like the right to vote, the right to free speech is not limited to citizens only.
As written, this is a bad law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As written, this is a bad law (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As written, this is a bad law (Score:5, Interesting)
When they can restrict freedom at the national level that's how they do it: reproductive rights.
When they control states they shut down their foes at the state level. This is Tic-Tok in Montana, Disney in Florida.
They also try and seize power at the local level: Constitutional Sheriffs [wikipedia.org] "Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional."
The existing constitutional division of power and responsibility is nullified when asserting authoritarian control, often in ways that are contradictory. Could a sheriff declare abortion illegal in a county? If a state wants to keep the Roe v. Wade in their jurisdiction would that be allowed? The agenda is ultimately the end of the rule of law/
Re: As written, this is a bad law (Score:2)
I din't think the Rs care about a functional government or a livable sociey. And it shows with the reddest states also being the poorest.
It's all about powering themselves up, wooing a voter base who is hateful and ignorant, and money. They couldn't care less what happens to America and the escape jet is always ready if things get real bad.
Re: (Score:1)
California has a 31 billion dollar budget short fall this year.
Does that sound rich to you?
Re: (Score:2)
So what? They can't pay their bills.
"Oh I'm so rich, I am the fifth richest guy in my zip code! Woo! Too bad I spend more money than I make and can't pay my bills but look at my fancy car, my trophy wife and my beautifully manicured lawn! Just don't look at the cracks in my foundation, the algae that's taken over my pool, and that my water and electricity were turned off. But I sure am rich!"
Re: As written, this is a bad law (Score:2)
Places like Orlando and Miami, and I think the Keys as well make Florida a bit of a purple state.
Most of the right wing rhetoric seems to come from the center and northern parts of Florida and unfortunately has reign over the politics of that state in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But the citizens are either asleep or support these traitors. From a historical perspective, the time to act is pretty much now. But it looks to me like the US needs its intense love-affair with Fascism before people learn about the extreme price of ignoring its beginnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer privacy is a false flag here. The basis for the ban is misguided. What it should be based on is the power of persuasion that Tik Tok has over its users. With the click of a mouse button, they can make any content go viral or suppress any content they don't like. Housing the data in an American cloud facility is meaningless.
Re: What's good for the goose... (Score:2)
Fucking Republicans too. They do the same thing. Finding ways around federal laws is a bipartisan thing.
Case should be thrown out for lack of standing? (Score:3, Insightful)
TikTok is a Chinese company and therefore has no standing to claim a rights violation. ByteDance is a Chinese company
TikTok should be banned because the CCP controls [nypost.com] the HEAT button [forbes.com] and TikTok has been shown to be detrimental to the mental health of teenagers [wsj.com].
Re: Case should be thrown out for lack of standing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If our ideals canÃ(TM)t hold up to Chinese propaganda they were not very good ones to begin with.
Chinese ideals cannot hold up to our propaganda, so they don't allow our social networks there. Why should we allow theirs here when they won't allow ours? No reciprocity? No access.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese ideals cannot hold up to our propaganda, so they don't allow our social networks there. Why should we allow theirs here when they won't allow ours? No reciprocity? No access.
None of that changes whether they have a legal right or not. By your logic, we have to follow Muslim ideals if we want to import oil from those countries.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that changes whether they have a legal right or not.
Well, that hasn't been tested yet. Does citizens united cover foreign corporations?
By your logic, we have to follow Muslim ideals if we want to import oil from those countries.
That's a bullshit take. A more rational one would be either that we have to also let them buy our oil, or that we would have to allow their religion here.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens United addresses specifically campaign finance limits by domestic corporations. Foreign corporations were already limited in their donations before Citizen's United.
That's a bullshit take. A more rational one would be either that we have to also let them buy our oil, or that we would have to allow their religion here.
You said: "Chinese ideals cannot hold up to our propaganda, so they don't allow our social networks there. Why should we allow theirs here when they won't allow ours? No reciprocity? No access."
By your own logic, we would have follow Muslim ideals and Ch
Re: (Score:2)
I didnâ(TM)t think freedom of speech stops at the border. Americans have always had the right to consume and promote speech from any country they want. If our ideals canâ(TM)t hold up to Chinese propaganda they were not very good ones to begin with.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020) held that "As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 770–771."
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read that case citation or the case because in the case, the term "outside" refers to where the rights infraction is occurring not where the citizenship originates. In that case, foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay cannot sue for rights violations because the prison is technically outside US borders. It does not say what you claim it does.
Re: (Score:2)
The original comment claims Bytedance and TikTok are Chinese companies and have no standing to sue over a "rights violation" (by which I assume they mean the first amendment). The responsive comment claimed that rights did not stop at the border (i.e. that a Chinese company could, in fact, sue over a first amendment issue). My response is that the Supreme Court has held that foreign citizens who are not in the US do not possess rights under the constitution.
You reference Gitmo so I am assuming that your "
Re: (Score:2)
The original comment claims Bytedance and TikTok are Chinese companies and have no standing to sue over a "rights violation" (by which I assume they mean the first amendment). The responsive comment claimed that rights did not stop at the border (i.e. that a Chinese company could, in fact, sue over a first amendment issue). My response is that the Supreme Court has held that foreign citizens who are not in the US do not possess rights under the constitution.
1) TikTok, Inc. which filed the lawsuit is based in California and by definition a US company. It is ultimately owned by a foreign company but that does not negate it is a US company. 2) This TikTok case is about what happens WITHIN US borders so your citation is at best misleading.
You reference Gitmo so I am assuming that your "did you even read that case" refers to Boumediene v. Bush which I did not cite (the Court did--I even ensured to quote the words of the Court so you would realize this was from the decision, and not my claim), rather than Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc which is what I cited.
The actual decision by SCOTUS which you left out key parts:
Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional. Two bedrock legal principles lead to this conclusion. As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 770–771. And as a matter of American corporate law, separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations. See, e.g., Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 474–475. That conclusion corresponds to Congress’s historical practice of conditioning funding to foreign organizations, which helps ensure that U. S. foreign aid serves U. S. interests.
I do realize that the situation we are discussing is the opposite of that (US subsidiary of foreign entity) but I would expect the current court to rule similarly.
Why? A US subsidiary is still a US company which still has to follow US laws even if their parent ownership is overseas.
In any event, it absolutely supports the original claim, which is "TikTok is a Chinese company and therefore has no standing to claim a rights violation. ByteDance is a Chinese company" (in other words, yes, it does say what I claim it does.)
Again, TikTok, Inc. is a US based company.
Re:Case should be thrown out for lack of standing? (Score:5, Informative)
TikTok is a Chinese company
Who does business and has an office located within the United States. They have a right to due process of the law, which includes asking the court this question. Now the courts have every right to indicate that they have no standing and no right to a first amendment or quite possibly the opposite. But the 14th amendment extends the ability to exercise a writ before the court as part of due process to anyone on anything the US considers its soil.
So yes, they and literally anyone else by virtue of just standing on US soil, have a right to at the very least petition the court. Doesn't mean their argument holds water or not, but any human being on US soil has a right to the US courts. We had to create this right since newly freed slaves needed the ability to petition the court to make determinations about their status as newly freed people and the Constitution didn't offer originally the right to the courts to slaves or even former slaves that might have fled slave states, hence the whole Fugitive Slave Act being square with the Constitution vis. Prigg v. Pennsylvania. So the extension of the court system to any human being on US soil still remains in force in this country so long as the 14th amendment stands.
TikTok has been shown to be detrimental to the mental health of teenagers
I mean that might be something the court considers, maybe not. But they do get to at least ask the question to the courts. The correct answer, at least I feel is the correct answer, is that we must wait to see what the courts rule on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is a Chinese company
Who does business and has an office located within the United States. They have a right to due process of the law, which includes asking the court this question. Now the courts have every right to indicate that they have no standing and no right to a first amendment or quite possibly the opposite. But the 14th amendment extends the ability to exercise a writ before the court as part of due process to anyone on anything the US considers its soil.
So yes, they and literally anyone else by virtue of just standing on US soil, have a right to at the very least petition the court. Doesn't mean their argument holds water or not, but any human being on US soil has a right to the US courts.
Too bad TikTok is not registered in Guantanamo Bay - that would have denied them the right to petition the courts, since that is US controlled but technically Cuban soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad TikTok is not registered in Guantanamo Bay - that would have denied them the right to petition the courts
The actual reason Gitmo cannot reach the courts is actually a pretty interesting. The AUMF of 2001 PDF [govinfo.gov] allows the President to hold anyone related to the 9/11 attacks under the conditions of a court of war. This distinction means that we get to use the other part of the supreme law of the law.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution
As you can see there are two parts to the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution AND all treaties made under the authority of the United States. And the AUMF of 2001 i
Re: Case should be thrown out for lack of standing (Score:2)
"Heat button"
More political manipulation, more steering the herd to do what the overlords want.
I never knew there was a "heat button", and this shows that social media is garbage and dangerous for young minds.
Still, Montana is taking the stupid route and they are going to cause more kids to join Tik Tok because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect they are creating.
Re: (Score:2)
Montana is outclassed (Score:3)
Tik tok is $9 billion in revenue. Imagine a person in a trailer house who pays his lot fees with welfare payments trying to keep someone like Google from buying the trailer park to convert to a parking lot.
We would root for the people who have no where else to love because they refuse to wrk, but we know they would lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Montana has the highest HS graduation rate in the country.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And I've been to several states known for having the best schools such as California, Massachusetts, and a few others. All of them are shitty except for the fenced off nicer areas which are rather limited in size.
Your point?
Mine is that most places are shitty and the average IQ is 100. Half the popular has less than 100 IQ.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other metrics. But as most of those metrics are biased to white people, white states will tend to do better.
Re: (Score:2)
So you get proven wrong with third party data and move the goal posts.
Thanks for playing. I'm here most days if you'd like to try again some other time but I do not accept the lower forms of rhetorical tactics such as goal post moving, ad hominem, straw men, or a slashdot favorite - flat out lying. Happy to engage in a serious way otherwise.
TikTok is right, but... (Score:2)
As much as I think TikTok should be banned wherever IQ levels need to be preserved, TikTok right: Montana's law is unconstitutional.
However, I can't help but think TikTok isn't what the founding fathers had in mind.. Sill, the constitution is the constitution, and it protects turds as much as it protects gems.
Re: (Score:3)
To protect freedom, you also have to protect the freedoms of scumbags. Because if you do not, then in short order only the powerful will have any freedom left and sometimes not even them.
Failure at step 1 (Score:2)
The USSC made a huuuuge error when they declared companies have the same rights as people.
TikTok should not (but unfortunately does) have constitutional rights.
No one here has actually read the Montana law, including me, so I'm not going to comment on whether it violates the 1a or not but that _shouldn't_ when any company is the issue, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No one here has actually read the Montana law, including me, so I'm not going to comment on whether it violates the 1a or not but that _shouldn't_ when any company is the issue, anyway
What is there to read? Montana has publicly announced [mt.gov] that it is banning the TikTok from operating in the state. In doing that it is ordering mobile applications stores from offering TikTok designating them agents of their policy.
Re: (Score:2)
What's there to read? The law.
It doesn't matter what some PR flunky announces to the press.
We have these things call laws. We also have a lesser but still important thing called regulations. Both are always in writing. Anything not in writing is neither a law nor a regulation and therefore irrelevant.
Without a written law/regulation no one can know what their actual legal responsibilities are and in fact because there is nothing in writing, they have no legal responsibilities.
This is really really reall
Re: (Score:1)
Oh wait, look, he did sign an actually bill. #419 according to your own link.
So wtf are you birthing about? Read 419. Jfc.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh wait, look, he did sign an actually bill. #419 according to your own link.
The fact that you do not understand what the term "official government position" means.
So wtf are you birthing about? Read 419. Jfc.
I have. Have you? If you did not know SB0419 [mt.gov] is 5 pages long with 2 pages reserved for signatures. Compared to those 3 pages, the article posted TELLS you way, way more.
Re: (Score:2)
If Montana had written a law banning certain actions that would catch TikTok, then they would have a case. But they wrote a law specifically banning TikTok, which seems to violate Article 1 section 9 that prohibits bills of attainder. [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't have official yet unwritten positions.
As previously noted, if it isn't a law or regulation, it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a government position that's meaningful in any way. All authority and action services from laws and regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't have official yet unwritten positions.
So Montana's position written
and publicly posted statements on their website is not their official written position? It seems you do not know what the word written means.
As previously noted, if it isn't a law or regulation, it doesn't exist.
1) As I pointed out it WAS a law as it had been signed which you did not know. 2) You do know that before legislation becomes enacted laws they exist as bills [wikipedia.org]? Did you think laws just poof into existence without a process?
There is no such thing as a government position that's meaningful in any way.
You do know that governments have entire offices dedicated to informing the public about the government official positi
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what some PR flunky announces to the press.
On Montana's official government website, the state of Montana has publicly declared the purpose and intent of their new law. This is not some random person posting on Reddit; this is their official government position.
We have these things call laws. We also have a lesser but still important thing called regulations. Both are always in writing. Anything not in writing is neither a law nor a regulation and therefore irrelevant.
And what does that have to do with your point again? My point is we do not need to read the actual text of law to get the point of the law especially when the government itself is telling us.
Without a written law/regulation no one can know what their actual legal responsibilities are and in fact because there is nothing in writing, they have no legal responsibilities.
What part of Montana has publicly declared the points of the law including responsibilities is unclear
The "Party of Small Government" strikes again (Score:3)
The "Party of Small Government" strikes again...
I'd love to know just exactly how they intend to enforce this.
Mandatory phone searches? Scanning the net to detect traffic from these dangerous scofflaws? Reviewing every TikTok video to see if there are inbred rednecks in the background?
I learned a long time ago, don't make a rule you can't enforce. And this seems very very very unenforceable.
Disclaimer: Montana is a beautiful state that is, unfortunately, infested with loads of backward, uneducated mouth-breathers. My first few trips there were enough to convince me never to set willingly foot in the state again.
Re: (Score:3)
Montana cannot logistically do it. For example, they are ordering mobile application stores not to offer the app in the state. Google and Apple can fight the order for years or just ignore the order. Third party app stores especially those outside the US can just ignore the order as unenforceable. With Android side loading, all TikTok has to do is offer an APK file which can be hosted on any website.
As for banning the website, that requires Montana ISPs to comply. These ISPs are under more state control; ho
The law was designed to be struck down. (Score:3)