US Judge Blocks Montana From Banning TikTok Use In State (reuters.com) 99
Montana's first-of-its-kind state ban on TikTok has been blocked by a U.S. judge, saying it "oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users." Reuters reports: TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance, did not immediately comment Thursday. The company sued Montana in May, seeking to block the U.S. state ban on several grounds, arguing that it violates the First Amendment free speech rights of the company and users. TikTok users in Montana also filed suit to block the ban. TikTok said in a court filing it "has not shared, and would not share, U.S. user data with the Chinese government, and has taken substantial measures to protect the privacy and security of TikTok users."
Molloy, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, found merit to numerous arguments raised by TikTok in his opinion. During an October hearing, Molloy questioned why no other state had followed Montana in banning TikTok and asked if the state was being "paternalistic" in arguing the ban was necessary to protect the data of TikTok users. Montana could have imposed fines of $10,000 for each violation by TikTok in the state but the law did not impose penalties on individual TikTok users.
Molloy, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, found merit to numerous arguments raised by TikTok in his opinion. During an October hearing, Molloy questioned why no other state had followed Montana in banning TikTok and asked if the state was being "paternalistic" in arguing the ban was necessary to protect the data of TikTok users. Montana could have imposed fines of $10,000 for each violation by TikTok in the state but the law did not impose penalties on individual TikTok users.
Re:Shocker. The game was obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
Overall they're just getting tired of all this freedom. Roll it back, get it managed and under control. Freedom is a dangerous weapon in the hands of people who aren't legislators.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to have an opinion, do not do it in front of me.
Re: (Score:1)
No. You have the freedom to do that.
What you do NOT have the freedom to do is FORCE me to endure your attempts.
Nor to force me to subsidize your lifestyle.
Re: (Score:2)
What you do NOT have the freedom to do is FORCE me to endure your attempts.
You are correct. I cannot walk into your house wearing a dress without your permission.
Nor to force me to subsidize your lifestyle.
The majority can force the minority to subsidize whatever they want. Been that way since the dawn of the country.
You, also, are confused about what freedom means.
You think you can uphold freedom while legislating your morality.
You think this because you are an unintelligent human.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't mean via government handouts.
I'm talking about using force to intimidate people into giving in.
That's still a form of (albeit disgusting) subsidization.
Kinda like the "Peaceful Protests" at schools where people whose views differ are assaulted, robbed or possibly killed and property is destroyed.
Re: (Score:1)
What freedoms am I preventing you from engaging in?
Please. Elucidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I don't use TikTok. But a lot of people who don't agree with you do.
Make a deal with you.
You ban TikTok, we'll ban X.
Fair?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope.
This is you "narrative crafting".
We know, you're okay with inundating other people's kids with porn and communism.
My basic point is, parents should have a right to say "no" to this shit and make it stick.
Nobody actually gives a shit about people who want to dress up like a misogynist fantasy in a funhouse mirror.
If you're an adult, you're fine. It may not be pretty. But you can do what you want on your own time and in your own venue.
You cannot expose other people's kids or force someone to subsidize
Re: (Score:2)
This is you "narrative crafting".
Crafting a narrative is a necessary part of any debate, you imbecile.
We know, you're okay with inundating other people's kids with porn and communism.
lol. Seriously, you fucking idiot?
My basic point is, parents should have a right to say "no" to this shit and make it stick.
They do. Nobody disagrees with that.
This is you "strawman crafting"
Nobody actually gives a shit about people who want to dress up like a misogynist fantasy in a funhouse mirror. If you're an adult, you're fine. It may not be pretty. But you can do what you want on your own time and in your own venue.
This is also you "strawman crafting".
You cannot expose other people's kids or force someone to subsidize your activities.
The majority can force the minority to subsidize whatever they want. Been that way since the dawn of time.
In Oklahoma, everyone is forced to subsidize religious family planning organizations. That's just how it works.
You assholes have been trying to ban Twitter since the company was bought.
Oh my fuck. You're an unhinged fucking dimwit.
Nobody has passed one single piece of l
Re: (Score:1)
In short, you're willfully blinding yourself to reality.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Overall they're just getting tired of all this freedom. Roll it back, get it managed and under control. Freedom is a dangerous weapon in the hands of people who aren't legislators.
The Dems don't like freedom. They are perfectly happy to (for example) meet weekly with social media companies, tell them which posts to take down, etc. They are perfectly happy to have speech they don't like "unplatformed".
No, Dems don't care for freedom.
They do like TikTok. Opiate of the masses and all that. They certainly don't want anybody looking up from their phones and thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you overhear somebody say the words "conspiracy theorist", it's because they're talking about you in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Do you know of some sort of motive these sneaky Republicans have or do they just like saying they are upset with random things and then secretly working against their own efforts for shits and giggles?
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be basic political competence and GOP signature amorality?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean as opposed to whipping up their base's outrage with publicity stunts [feigned or otherwise] toward someone they DO want to hinder and then looking like a boss when they in fact hinder said party?
My way sounds more politically competent but maybe that's is just me. You seem to be suggesting that a track record of failure not only isn't bad but is something they'd be aspiring toward.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's Montana. This is bush-league posturing.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what hilariously counts as insightful on Slashdot: some leftist wanking (hard) that, according to their tortuous logic, blocking TikTok is somehow a way for the always fascist Republicans to claim more power.
Creative.
Irrational, but creative.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a time that people on slashdot considered censorship to be something done by fascists regardless of party. Now it seems it's been infested with people that will go along with anything their favorite party in power does
Re: (Score:2)
Now do Twitter, Facebook, etc. (Score:2)
If a categorical ban on a particular platform infringes the constitutional rights of prospective users of that platform, pushes by the government for targeted censorship of particular users are a fortiori more clearly violations of the same rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Pointing out that someone is violating the platforms own rules, or pointing out that something is inaccurate or harmful, is in no way equivalent to passing a law to enforce that with the backing of cops, guns, and prison.
This is the same kind of diffe
Re: (Score:2)
The ban does nothing of the sort and this ruling won't stand on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but whether you believe TikTok's narrative about being independent and HQ's in LA or not; Montana's going to get slapped down on this one. If they're legitimately a California company in LA (Which I don't believe for a second, but just for the sake of argument.) then this is interstate commerce. If they are what they are... a Chinese company ruled from China... then it's international commerce. Both interstate and international trade are constitutionally the province of the federal government.
Do Not Share (Score:1, Insightful)
The claim that they don't share their user information with the Chinese government is totally silly. Any weasel words about their policy aside, they have no choice in the matter. They're a fucking Chinese company in fucking China and are therefore totally controlled by the Chinese military. Why would anyone believe otherwise?
The question is whether people have a 1A right to willingly hand over their real-time information to a hostile foreign power?
You might come back and claim that the NSA is collecting the
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly should. Any intervention should focus on awareness. We don't need the government taking away citizens rights for their own good, there's too much of that already.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should not. That handing over of information at scale aids the enemy and therefore each individual participating is giving aid to the enemy. Legally, that is treason.
People love to toss the word treason about for anything they think undermines our national interests or the people which tends to be everything the 'other guys' do to pursue their politics which those people think undermine our national interests. The founders knew this would happen, that is why they defined treason explicitly.
And this
Re: (Score:2)
People love to toss the word treason about for anything they think undermines our national interests or the people which tends to be everything the 'other guys' do to pursue their politics which those people think undermine our national interests. The founders knew this would happen, that is why they defined treason explicitly.
Absolutely 100% correct!
And this is it, giving aid to China is treason and that includes enabling them to get intelligence on your and others via Tiktok. How many politicians and strategic businessmen have the Chinese gotten leverage on because they, their spouse, their children, etc share minable data on tiktok?
And then you go and fucking do exactly that.
Fucking hell, do you sprinkle fucking lead chips on your food?
Re: (Score:2)
They're a fucking Chinese company in fucking China
The parent company, Bytedance, is based in Beijing, but TikTok is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has dual headquarters in Singapore and Los Angeles. The CEO of TikTok is a citizen of Singapore and lives in California. The ownership is mostly international, and only 20% Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Bytedance has access to the data, they've been caught out on this congressional testimony. They also brazenly lie throughout their testimony,
"The ownership is mostly international, and only 20% Chinese"
Controlling interest is controlling interest, the rest of that makes no difference whatsoever is the controlling interest in the company is Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Data Privacy" is a red herring.
The true concern is psychological manipulation of the Youth by an algorithm ultimately controlled by the CPC.
We can argue about whether and how much that is happening and if it's good or bad, but anybody arguing about "data privacy" is running cover for that psyop.
This includes many politicians who are on record and on SAR's as having taken money from the CPC.
Re: (Score:2)
The true concern is psychological manipulation of the Youth by an algorithm ultimately controlled by the CPC.
Seems quite unlikely that anything about TikTok is controlled by the CCP, as Chinese nationals only own 20% of the parent company.
What about manipulation of youth by Russians via US social media platforms? That's a-ok? Hell, defend it to the death as long as it seems to be benefiting the guy I want to win, right?
Your concern for the youth is another red herring.
Pull the other one (Score:3, Insightful)
Tik Tok won't act as a tool of the CCP just like American social media won't act as a tool of the FBI and CIA.
Re:Pull the other one (Score:4, Insightful)
China agrees, that's why most American social media companies are banned there and why I feel that there are valid argument that could be made for the banning of TikTok in the US, but probably still shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not quite as directly dangerous as a bomb, but look at all the harm Russia managed to do to the West (admittedly ultimately with more blowback on themselves...) for very little investment. Certainly a lot less than keeping military forces stationed along borders in large numbers, and able to do more than maintain a status quo. Put some money into social media campaigns to drive wedges into identified cracks in a society, you can weaken it quite a bit.
I think social media has proven a dangerous enough
Re:Pull the other one (Score:4, Interesting)
China doesn't have the equivalent of the US's First Amendment and they also have their "Great Firewall" that filters (or attempts to) traffic to and fro.
There's no problem with the government banning TikTok on government owned devices or on private devices in work areas of government facilities. But unless there is some very clear national security threat which I see no evidence of, I don't see any way that the government can legally ban TikTok on consumers' private devices.
Re: (Score:1)
The fear is that social media could be used to spread information that damages the Party. In China it's the CCP, in the US it's the GOP.
They are still upset about TikTok users sabotaging one of Trump's campaign rallies some years back. Young voters skew Democrat, so they are keen to ban anything that helps them organize. Facebook is where GOP conspiracy theories and radicalization happens, so Facebook is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is banned in China.
Read that as many times as necessary and then tell me why it shouldn't be banned here.
TikTok is a munition.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't get to curtail rights simply because an authoritarian regime has done so.
Re: Pull the other one (Score:2)
China has another version they let Chinese people use. They made TikTok specifically for manipulation of the West. It is a weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is banned in China.
Read that as many times as necessary and then tell me why it shouldn't be banned here.
This chain of logic borders on idiocy. Knowing that you're not an idiot, I think you should capitulate rather than prove you're capable of becoming one to save an argument.
Let's go ahead and rephrase your logic.
The New York Times is banned in China.
Read that as many times as necessary and then tell me why it shouldn't be banned here.
Your opinion that it is a weapon is just that. An opinion.
Worse, it's an opinion aimed at a platform that does nothing but share content.
I can play that game too.
X is a weapon. It was purchased by Musk specifically so he could turn it into a tool to manipulate American principles. It
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinion that it is a weapon is just that. An opinion.
Great. Let's see it go to court and prove it one way or the other.
X is a weapon. It was purchased by Musk specifically so he could turn it into a tool to manipulate American principles. It is a weapon.
Now, I don't believe that. But that's because I'm not generally susceptible to really bad and inconsistent reasoning.
At this point he's clearly just crashing it on purpose. The Saudis said "what are we going to do with all of these dollars while they're still worth something" and we all know their commitment to attacking journalists, who have been successfully using the platform to reach people directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Let's see it go to court and prove it one way or the other.
It will (and has)
It will continue to fail. It is an attack on first amendment rights.
At this point he's clearly just crashing it on purpose. The Saudis said "what are we going to do with all of these dollars while they're still worth something" and we all know their commitment to attacking journalists, who have been successfully using the platform to reach people directly.
Hah. Wow, didn't have you figured for one of the members of his personality cult.
Disappointing, drinky.
How about (Score:1, Insightful)
Banning something that is actually dangerous to children? https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29... [cnn.com]
Toddlers in the USA accidentally shot more people in 2022 than there were shootings in Japan.
How about we ban banning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning toddlers is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, even if they shoot more people than the Japanese. I am tired of the ban obsession.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning toddlers is the dumbest idea I have ever heard
Having just come back from family Thanksgiving holidays... I'm inclined to disagree with you, there.
Standing? (Score:2)
How do user's constitutional rights come into it? As far as I was aware you don't have a constitutional right to a product or service. And as far as I am aware the government was blocking a company or corporation from providing a product, not a user from accessing it. How does this not fall afoul of standing provisions in law?
I could buy that it falls afoul of the company's first amendment rights, providing that the ban didn't hing on harm being done, at which point free speech again doesn't come into it...
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I was aware you don't have a constitutional right to a product or service.
The Constitution doesn't grant you any rights. You were born with them by virtue of being a human being. What the Constitution does is grant the Federal Government certain powers and responsibilities. This is a longstanding concept in our legal tradition, predating the Constitution, and it's codified in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
That said, the Federal Government might be able to "ban" TikTok under interstate and foreign commerce/relations, and/or national defense authorities. If they did this and i
Re: (Score:2)
The only path I could see to outright blocking TikTok would be under POTUS'es war powers.
You're ignoring a concept of harm. If you're argument is that TikTok shouldn't exist by virtue of being Chinese then yeah I agree with your position, but if the argument is about direct harm, there's plenty of power states have to ban a product or company from operating.
You didn't need war powers to ban asbestos either. (Yeah I know stupid example, but I'm facetiously trying to make a point). Either way it seems strange to make this a first amendment issue from the point of view of the users. As far as I ca
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok does not operate any data centers or have any physical presence in MT to the best of my knowledge. That makes it 100% interstate (and foreign) commerce. If it was a physical product, let's say a leaf blower [californialocal.com], they could, unless preempted by Congress, ban the sale of it within their State. They could not ban MT residents from simply driving to another State and buying it there.
In TikTok's case, there's no 'transaction' within the borders of MT. It's a free app. Even if there was an exchange of
Re: (Score:2)
I have the right to hear speech under the 1st Amendment.
But you don't have the right to buy a particular brand of hearing aid. I think you missed my point.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating hearing aids with information sources. It's disingenuous, or it's dumb. I'm not sure which, yet.
TikTok can be replaced with Twitter. Should the government have the right to ban Twitter?
What about Facebook?
What about the comments section of the New York Times?
What about OpEds in the New York Times?
What about the New York Times?
Re: (Score:2)
How do user's constitutional rights come into it? As far as I was aware you don't have a constitutional right to a product or service. And as far as I am aware the government was blocking a company or corporation from providing a product, not a user from accessing it. How does this not fall afoul of standing provisions in law?
Serious question?
Replace TikTok with Twitter.
Or the New York Times.
I could buy that it falls afoul of the company's first amendment rights, providing that the ban didn't hing on harm being done, at which point free speech again doesn't come into it...
The US Government must tread very carefully when banning a source of information for its citizens. It is a step fraught with constitutional land mines.
If the US were at war, it would likely make it through the courts.
Or if a president gave a solid explanation for how it presented a clear and present danger to the US' national security, that executive order might stand.
But a State? No way in fuck.
TikTok Privacy is a Slippey Slope (Score:2)
TikTok said in a court filing it "has not shared, and would not share, U.S. user data with the Chinese government, and has taken substantial measures to protect the privacy and security of TikTok users."
Considering a Chinese corporation owns this company, just how far is this privacy defense statement actually removed from "Oh, gosh, would you look at that...we seem to have been hacked..." and that information being disclosed with the very entity they claim has not shared, and would not share data with?
Quite the slippery slope to dance around.
Gotta Have Tik-Tok So You Can Fix (Score:1)
All the Chinese goods that we have in America. Duh.
Why won't the same argument work for drugs? (Score:1)
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Re:Why won't the same argument work for drugs? (Score:4, Interesting)
I heard many people yelling "my body my choice" when it came to vaccines. I asked if that applied to abortions or cannabis and they told me to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard many people yelling "my body my choice" when it came to vaccines. I asked if that applied to abortions or cannabis and they told me to fuck off.
You do know that a baby is literally a different body, right, and not yours? A different human being, with different DNA.
I know that science confuses you guys though ...
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that a baby is literally a different body, right, and not yours? A different human being, with different DNA.
That's debatable, whether you like it or not.
At some point, that becomes obviously true, but the point at which it is is very much open to debate.
For example, 4 cells does not a human being make.
But what does? 1000 cells? A million?
I agree there needs to be clear definition on what constitutes a human being, but "a fertilized egg" isn't fucking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that a baby is literally a different body, right, and not yours? A different human being, with different DNA.
I know that science confuses you guys though ...
Fine if you want to go down that road then child support now starts at conception. As does health insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is evidenced by the complete and utter lack of any and all legally enforced personal vaccine mandates.
Contrast that with war over abortion law that has been ongoing since Roe v. Wade was first handed down.
I'd say the "my body my choice- get vaccinated!" crowd are more... personally hostile toward those who don't, they don't see to be trying to legislate their morality.
The opposite is not true for the "my body my choice- abortion is illegal!", which have put up a fucking He
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech for corporations (Score:3)
This isn't about free speech. The justification for the ban is "to protect residents from alleged intelligence gathering by China". I.e., a government standing up for privacy rights. User data is being transferred to Chinese servers. This is no different, really, than the EU demands that data on EU citizens not be stored on US servers. Perfectly reasonable. If the data is on Chinese servers, you have no control over who has access to it. Be assured that the Chinese government does, for example.
The objection that banning TikTok impinges personal rights to free speech) seems odd. TikTok is a commercial application, one of a zillion. If you have an important opinion to express, you can still express it - just not on this particular commercial platform.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you can't rely on innuendo and speculation in court, you have to actually prove that TikTok is lying when they say they don't transfer any user data to China.
Otherwise they could censor anything and anyone just by making up some bogus claims about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear they distinguish between collected user data (i.e., EULA we are gonna data mine your ass) data, and financial payment information for creators. And this makes sense. And is normal.
These would not be considered equivalent by YouTube or Instagram, either.
What really concerns me about people like you, is you can look at a set of words that clearly elucidates something, and then throw away all the shit you don't want until you can construct what
Re: (Score:2)
The justification for the ban is "to protect residents from alleged intelligence gathering by China". I.e., a government standing up for privacy rights. User data is being transferred to Chinese servers. This is no different, really, than the EU demands that data on EU citizens not be stored on US servers.
There is actually quite a bit of difference between the US banning TikTok and the GDPR. Notably, the EU also imposes heavy regulation on how it's own domestic companies can store and use people's data. The US government's behaviour has done nothing to convince me that it actually gives any shits about the privacy of its citizens. Like, do you think any American politicians would kick up a fuss if the Chinese government simply bought user data from an American company?
I have no love for TikTok, and I don'
Re: (Score:1)
This is NOT about free speech and also NOT about privacy.
Privacy, also known as READ access to your data, unfortunately, serves as a strawman argument attempting to divert attention from the real issue: TikTok provides the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with direct WRITE access to the minds of millions of Americans.
Chinese laws, such as the National Intelligence Law and the Data Security Law, bestow significant control upon the Chinese government over companies like ByteDance. These laws compel compliance wi
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese Algorithms are out to get us!
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about free speech.
Correct. It is about regulating foreign trade (US citizens transacting with a foreign company is foreign trade, irrespective of whether or not money is involved). Which is a power reserved to the federal government by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
In states that give an actual fuck about privacy, it's the entity that is violating it that is targeted and fined.
Here we're targeting anyone that may sell it, and the people who use it.
That's not protecting privacy, it's a fucking war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
If Meta wants to say "You can't post porn" you have no 1st amendment protection.
If Uncle Sam says "You can't use Meta" then you do have 1st amendment protection.
You can try to legislate what a company can do but I don't know how you can enforce a law that says American citizens may not consent to giving their personal information to a 3rd party who will store it wherever they please. This isn't like shar
Re: (Score:2)
Good judgement (Score:3)
communications act (Score:2)
The Telecommunications act from 30s allows the barring of more than a certain percentage of foreign ownership in broadcasters. However, that is a federal, not state, prerogative.