Texas' TikTok Ban Hit With First Amendment Lawsuit (cnn.com) 37
Texas's ban on TikTok at state institutions violates the First Amendment, claims a lawsuit filed Thursday by a group of academics and civil society researchers. CNN reports: The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, which works to study the impact of technology on society. The lawsuit specifically challenges Texas' TikTok ban in relation to public universities, saying it compromises academic freedom and impedes vital research. "The ban is not just ineffective but counterproductive. It's impeding researchers and scholars from studying the very things that Texas says it's concerned about -- like data-collection and disinformation," Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Institute, told CNN.
The lawsuit cites the example of a University of North Texas researcher who studies young people's use of social media, who has been forced to abandon research projects that rely on university computers and to remove material about TikTok from her courses. The Knight Institute lawsuit notes that Texas has not imposed a ban on other online platforms that collect similar user data, such as Meta and Google. It further argues that a ban doesn't "meaningfully" constrain China's ability to collect sensitive data about Americans, because this data is widely available from other data brokers.
"It's entirely legitimate for government officials to be concerned about social media platforms' data-collection practices, but Imposing broad bans on Americans' access to the platforms isn't a reasonable, effective, or constitutional response to those concerns," Jaffer told CNN. "Like it or not, TikTok is an immensely popular communications platform, and its policies and practices are influencing culture and politics around the world," said Dave Karpf, a Coalition for Independent Technology Research board member and associate professor in the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. "It's important that scholars and researchers be able to study the platform and illuminate the risks associated with it. Ironically, Texas's misguided ban is impeding our members from studying the very risks that Texas says it wants to address."
The lawsuit cites the example of a University of North Texas researcher who studies young people's use of social media, who has been forced to abandon research projects that rely on university computers and to remove material about TikTok from her courses. The Knight Institute lawsuit notes that Texas has not imposed a ban on other online platforms that collect similar user data, such as Meta and Google. It further argues that a ban doesn't "meaningfully" constrain China's ability to collect sensitive data about Americans, because this data is widely available from other data brokers.
"It's entirely legitimate for government officials to be concerned about social media platforms' data-collection practices, but Imposing broad bans on Americans' access to the platforms isn't a reasonable, effective, or constitutional response to those concerns," Jaffer told CNN. "Like it or not, TikTok is an immensely popular communications platform, and its policies and practices are influencing culture and politics around the world," said Dave Karpf, a Coalition for Independent Technology Research board member and associate professor in the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. "It's important that scholars and researchers be able to study the platform and illuminate the risks associated with it. Ironically, Texas's misguided ban is impeding our members from studying the very risks that Texas says it wants to address."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He meant Greg Abbott, noted little piss baby.
Re: (Score:3)
He meant Greg Abbott, noted little piss baby.
Thanks, my bad.
Except for the wheelchair, I'm not sure there's much difference between the 2.
meh I don't like defending Texas right-wing politi (Score:3, Insightful)
State and Federal government can and often do regulate business, even if that might prevent a business from exercising unprotected speech. The service offer by TikTok isn't realistically used for protected speech in a way unique to that service. Any other service could substitute for TikTok and allow for free expression of protected speech. As for the protected versus unprotected argument I'm trying to make. What I mean is I can't start a business pirating movies and claim I have a right to free speech. Turns out there is a set of intellectual property laws that restricts my speech, and rulings that say that pirating movies is a category of unprotected speech and not covered by the 1st Amendment.
I think more interesting is the idea of rule of law, that the law is applied equally in all cases, due process of the 5th Amendment, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If the legislature targets one business for harsher treatment over others, is that really a valid application of law? I would say probably not, but it depends.
I'm not a lawyer or judge, but I do have a right to criticize the creation and application of law in my country.
Re: (Score:2)
So you suggest that state and local government can't regulate businesses? All those local signage laws are probably suspect now too. Hmmm.
Re:meh I don't like defending Texas right-wing pol (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. The order required all state agencies, including public universities, to bar employees from downloading or using TikTok on state-owned or -issued devices, "including cell phones, laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and other devices capable of Internet connectivity."
No law says a company has to allow ANY software to be installed on equipment that the company owns. This is not a ban on personal devices. If a company believes that Adobe's Flash plug-in is a security risk, then it is not a First Amendment issue to ban installing it on the company's devices. Regulating what can be said or written is one thing - not allowing suspect insecure software is another.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The order required all state agencies, including public universities, to bar employees from downloading or using TikTok on state-owned or -issued devices, "including cell phones, laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and other devices capable of Internet connectivity."
No law says a company has to allow ANY software to be installed on equipment that the company owns. This is not a ban on personal devices. If a company believes that Adobe's Flash plug-in is a security risk, then it is not a First Amendment issue to ban installing it on the company's devices. Regulating what can be said or written is one thing - not allowing suspect insecure software is another.
Exactly, as an employer, the government (department or otherwise other organisation of) can decide what you are or are not permitted to do on the devices you are issued AND private devices that are used for work by your own violation. The same as a private employer may do.
Here in Europe, even my personal phone may be subject to GDPR if I store work data on it, ergo is subject to rules imposed by my employer and regardless of public or private, the same penalties apply. Dismissal at first, possible legal
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To put it another way, if they took home some company vehicle, their employer has every right to demand certain driving behaviors when driving it. The company also has every right to demand that the vehicle be returned to them in the condi
Government can censor its own use! (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can regulate what is used on its own devices. The first amendment doesn't apply. Only if gov censors what people do on their private devices does the 1st amendment apply.
Otherwise to say government can't regulate it's own devices is requiring them to be open to any 3rd party's hacks and is a national security risk.
Re:Government can censor its own use! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like that at all, because banning a speech from a campus prohibits someone invited to the University from speaking to willing listeners, whereas banning TikTok from government-issued devices merely prohibits government employees from using those devices to send information to Chinese spyware. Those employees can still use their own devices to send their information to the same Chinese spyware.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, a state could not require antivirus software on its computers, either. You prove too much.
Re: Government can censor its own use! (Score:2)
Government CAN limit what it sponsors, public Universities cannot for example, sponsor a terrorist extremist like Iranian leader Khomeini to visit a University. If Khomeini is visiting the US and the University wants to provide a platform on Iranâ(TM)s dime, it can do that under the free speech principles, but you canâ(TM)t spend government dollars flying him over here.
Similarly here, you CAN allow the TikTok DNS to resolve (be accessed) at the University on the basis of free speech, you cannot re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
government ban on gov equip !=censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
article says: " It further argues that a ban doesn't "meaningfully" constrain China's ability to collect sensitive data about Americans, because this data is widely available from other data brokers."
Exactly -- its not a ban, because researcher can obtain their data from others.
Only ban is on government devices -- not private ones.
Same way government can't force 3rd parties to adhere to government policies, as that would be
censorship!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how is the researcher going to get information on how tiktok specifically processes data? That's not something other data brokers carry.
Bahaha (Score:2)
The lawsuit cites the example of a University of North Texas researcher who studies young people's use of social media, who has been forced to abandon research projects that rely on university computers and to remove material about TikTok from her courses.
----
And nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:3)
The lawsuit cites the example of a University of North Texas researcher who studies young people's use of social media, who has been forced to abandon research projects that rely on university computers and to remove material about TikTok from her courses. ---- And nothing of value was lost.
I gotta wonder how much actual research value there is in studying young people's use of social media....
...and in turn, how much importance should be given to the degree be pursued that justifies such low-value research.
Perhaps as much value as there would be in studying how long people take in the WC and how much they deposit in the khazi (pronounced kar-see).
Re: (Score:1)
I gotta wonder how much actual research value there is in studying young people's use of social media....
None of course because we should simply be making up uninformed shit on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're not impressed with psychology or psychiatry degrees? Because understanding how people use communications technologies is kinda significant for those areas...
Re: Bahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
That is just an example of malicious compliance/propaganda. The funder of said research shouldâ(TM)ve provisioned computers to create a contained platform for the access of TikTok, which wouldâ(TM)ve taken it outside the realm of the local government regulation. The bill doesnâ(TM)t say anything about bringing up TikTok in your classes. Just like all the other laws (eg. parental rights bill intentionally propagandized as donâ(TM)t say gay, when the bill has nothing to do with saying gay)
Sound like mouthpieces for the CCP (Score:3, Insightful)
These "researchers" need to find a better client.