TikTok Asks Supreme Court To Block Law Banning Its US Operations (reuters.com) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: TikTokasked the Supreme Court on Monday to temporarily block a law that would effectively ban it in the United States in a matter of weeks. Saying that the law violates both its First Amendment rights and those of its 170 million American users, TikTok, which is controlled by a Chinese parent company, urged the justices to maintain the status quo while they decide whether to hear an appeal. "Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation presents grave constitutional problems that this court likely will not allow to stand," lawyers for TikTok wrote in their emergency application.
President Biden signed the law this spring after it was enacted with wide bipartisan support. Lawmakers said the app's ownership represented a risk because the Chinese government's oversight of private companies would allow it to retrieve sensitive information about Americans or to spread propaganda, though they have not publicly shared evidence that this has occurred. They have also noted that American platforms like Facebook and YouTube are banned in China, and that TikTok itself is not allowed in the country.
President Biden signed the law this spring after it was enacted with wide bipartisan support. Lawmakers said the app's ownership represented a risk because the Chinese government's oversight of private companies would allow it to retrieve sensitive information about Americans or to spread propaganda, though they have not publicly shared evidence that this has occurred. They have also noted that American platforms like Facebook and YouTube are banned in China, and that TikTok itself is not allowed in the country.
Honestly, they're probably right (Score:3)
In that they should have their day in court over something as major as this. Have all three branches agree this isn't an regulatory overstep, but a necessary legal action.
But courts looking at the issue should be done in an expedited manner because of importance for society, combined with clear agreement from 2/3 branches of government that this is necessary. Honestly, this is one of those cases where it going straight to upper court levels for a final verdict would be justifiable considering obstacles this legislation had to pass already.
But it's probably not doable for reasons of how process goes.
Re:Honestly, they're probably right (Score:5, Informative)
TikTok had their day in court. They lost. That's why they filed an appeal, which they also lost. Then they filed for en banc review, which was not granted. So now they are asking the Supreme Court for review. I give them two chances: fat and slim.
Re:Honestly, they're probably right (Score:5, Informative)
TikTok had their day in court. They lost. That's why they filed an appeal, which they also lost. Then they filed for en banc review, which was not granted. So now they are asking the Supreme Court for review. I give them two chances: fat and slim.
But right now they only need to delay another month, then they can buy their way out of it.
Re:Honestly, they're probably right (Score:4, Informative)
lol, chump
So innocent. These are not chumps. The Hunter Biden stuff is deliberately made up [bbc.co.uk]. If you claim you believe that's because Smirnov was a dual Israeli citizen, you're either totally naive or lying [npr.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody mentioned Smirnov, the 10% for the big guy quote, refers to the emails on his laptop, which he admitted in deposition referred to his dad, and for which his dad gave him a blanket pardon.
Re: (Score:1)
^ This.
Trump is definitely not China's "old friend." If Biden signed this, you can bet it was to head off something more substantial.
Actually, can someone remind me why we have ANY relations or trade with a nation found guilty of ongoing genocide by international tribunal?
Re: (Score:2)
Because Israel is our "friend". A friend who has deliberately attacked our ship in international waters and killed our sailors, who has lied to us about its nuclear weapons program, and has deliberately killed American citizens.
Oh, you meant China. Well that's where we get our computers, other electronic stuff, and all the crap products we buy at Walmart and
Re:Honestly, they're probably right (Score:5, Informative)
Neither was Biden's.
But he is the one who put his couldn't-get-a-security-clearance-son-in-law in the white house as an advisor, after which, he was gifted $2 billion by the Saudis for some mysterious reason. Gee i wonder why he's not interested in the T2 white house? Maybe he got his, and no longer needs to peddle whatever he peddled for that gift.
Re: (Score:2)
But right now they only need to delay another month, then they can buy their way out of it.
I could believe that will go either way. Trump isn't going to be sympathetic to TikTok while engaging in a trade war with China, anticipation of which led Xi to decline an invitation to his inauguration despite being 45's pen pal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot story linked in the OP talking about the actual law states the following:
>After the [January 25] deadline, U.S. app stores and internet services could face hefty fines for hosting TikTok if it is not sold. (Under the legislation, President Biden may issue a one-time extension of the deadline.)
Assuming headline isn't lying (big "if"), president does have authority under law to extend the time of the ban for potential negotiations. Though PRC views this legislation as an attempt to steal TikTok's
Re: (Score:2)
(3) EXTENSION - With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that
(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;
(B) evidence of sig
Re: (Score:2)
The sad reality is that US already has a well established principle with things like immigration that executive can just ignore law of the land and not do what it's required by law to do.
That is yet another reason why principled unity of all three branches would be important in a cornerstone level legislation such as this.
Re: (Score:2)
But frankly, the large platforms will self-enforce, so no matter his standpoint, the Act will come into effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So we agree that when executive announces it won't enforce laws, laws become toothless and pointless. That means normal persons, including corporations start to ignore potential penalties because potential for getting them is zero as long as you grease the hands of the bureaucracy to the point where they don't decide to individually enforce against orders from above.
Again illegal immigration and things like hiring knowingly and intentionally to bring down wages is illegal in many jurisdictions. But no enfor
Re: (Score:2)
So we agree that when executive announces it won't enforce laws, laws become toothless and pointless.
I'm pretty sure I said the opposite, lol.
That means normal persons, including corporations
In what universe is that categorization true? lol. Certainly not this one.
start to ignore potential penalties because potential for getting them is zero as long as you grease the hands of the bureaucracy to the point where they don't decide to individually enforce against orders from above.
No. Speaking from my experience as the head engineer at an ISP for almost 20 years, I can tell you we handle enforcement in an ultra-conservative fashion.
We follow rules even if there are temporary stays on their enforcement. We don't stop until they are unambiguously ruled against.
In this instance, if you violate the law, you have still committed a crime, even if it is not enforced.
What th
Re: (Score:2)
>Apple and Google aren't hiring illegal immigrants.
Apple and google don't want your average African immigrants, they want your top tier East Asian who can handle extremely complex abstract tasks. Latter come in legally, former illegally. So former get jobs at massive plants doing menial work that their abilities are better suited for.
Go to your local frozen chicken factory and look who's doing the menial work on the line. Hint: it ain't expensive as fuck US citizens with penchant for organizing labor.
As
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, Biden could use the one-time extension to punt it to the Trump administration (probably unlikely, since he signed it into law rather than stalling), or Trump's transition team could have a "quiet word" with the providers to wait on throwing the switch until Trump uses it to kick the can down the road and then tries to get congress to over
Re: (Score:2)
The latter is going to be hell to implement, but it will break the service because all US ISPs will likely have to warn certain CDNs that they are legally blocked from allowing something as high profile as this through. Considering the amount of data video uses, this isn't really possible to meaningfully obfuscate to the point where ISPs would be considered innocent of breaking this law. At least the way it's being spoken about. I'll admit that I haven't read the text of the law itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He could choose not to enforce it, and since his party controls Congress, he probably wouldn't get impeached over it.
But ultimately, Google Play and Apple App Store wouldn't care whether or not he enforced it- they would follow the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has invited XI to attend his inauguration. There will be no trade war.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has invited XI to attend his inauguration. There will be no trade war.
You're looking at it wrong. Trump loves getting his ass kissed. The only thing he likes more is making other people watch. It was a "power move". It's kind of like launching missiles at Syria before a dinner with Xi [reuters.com]. It's just not a very effective power move when your opponent knows he only needs to wait four years for you to leave office.
I'm agreeing that there probably won't be a trade war with China, I'm just saying that inviting a world leader to your "coronation" doesn't mean you're best buds.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is literally the guy who started the ball rolling on ban of TikTok. For all of sins that were invented for him by his political opponents, this one is probably one of the more egregious.
Re: (Score:2)
The ban was passed a month before Trump joined TikTok and found out that he was popular there.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, we'll probably find out that most of his 'fans' are bots.....
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you like about the guy- his popularity is hard to cast doubt upon. Which in my personal opinion, is a pretty terrifying aspect of current society, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we once again going to pretend that all the people who developed a power of mind reading for the single human being for 2016-2020 period have once again been bitten by the same spider and once again developed that amazing superpower?
Re: (Score:2)
When asked "How he was going to save TikTok", he literally said:
“Tiktok had an impact, and so we're taking a look at it,” Trump said of the app, which around 170 million Americans use. “I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart. I'll be honest.”
Re: (Score:2)
And from that, you read his mind and concluded that he actually thinks, and I quote:
>he *loves* TikTok, now.
Mea culpa, I assumed you were referring to someone else. You are the one with faith in your mindreading powers.
Re: (Score:2)
I paraphrased his words, you dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
"A little bit of a warm spot in my heart for something" equals "greatest mode of affection known to humanity".
Riiiiiiiight.
Re: (Score:2)
Vast bipartisan support. Were talking supermajority. Its one thing to pretend to support tik tok to get votes from idiot genZ, its another to donit when you tried to ban it in 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck seems to be willing to do whatever is needed to get Trump to stop hating him.
The only reason Trump doesn't support the TikTok ban is because he has Zuck Derangement Syndrome. It's hard to say how this will turn out.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the relevant case:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.go... [uscourts.gov]
Court of Appeals makes it clear that there is no precedent of this specific kind of legislation from Supreme Court rulings, through there are precedents for parts of it which is why TikTok's petition is denied. Just reading the list of amici curiae should tell you why it's so important that Supreme Court weigh on this.
Because fundamentally, this is "civil society vs intelligence agencies" Act. Where intelligence agencies seek to control discourse of
Re: (Score:2)
They want to control the ability of a foreign society to get an even easier way to spy than the massive amount of spying they are known to be doing any way. With the side effect of limiting the discourse of that foreign society.
Plenty of American controlled platforms to say almost anything for Americans, including about Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about agenda pushing. This is about principle, which is the entire point of Supreme Court of US. It delineates principles for lower courts to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
The principle is to have separation of powers, government doesn't need to wait for a supreme court rubber stamp on every decision they make.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. We have a common starting point. Moving on from it, "who's responsibility is it to implement laws, and adjudicate their consequences"?
And once you answer that, the final question is "what are the limiting principles, and who sets them?"
Once you combine those questions with reading the linked court document, I suspect you'll arrive at a position similar to mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor government nor lower courts need to wait on the supreme court. Even if a new law and/or judgement has non reversible consequences, if the supreme court can't be moved to put an emergency stop to it, tough titty.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, foreign powers do in fact have that right. It comes with sovereignty, and it's not just a right. It's a normative expectation. That's why legislation like this is enacted by domestic sovereign to counteract this expected action. In fact, foreign sovereigns even have a right to declare full total war on US should they choose to do so. That is the nature of sovereign privilege.
The problem however is that domestic intelligence agencies do not in fact have that right, unless specifically sanctioned by
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is an intelligence agency?
Re: (Score:2)
Go look at the hearings about this legislation. They're public. It will make sense once you have done so.
Re: (Score:2)
You now said a few self evident things that aren't relevant to the topic. Yes, sky is blue, water is wet and sovereigns are allowed to act within the limits of their sovereignty to safeguard said sovereignty.
Your second point is a poor attempt at lying via misrepresentation of reality outlined above.
Re: (Score:2)
>Here in the US laws are made by congress not intelligence agencies.
Not a single parliamentary republic with dual parliament works this way. Including US. Legislation is written by matter experts. It's voted on by the parliamentary body.
In this case, experts were intelligence agencies. Again, go and listen to the public hearings in Congress related to this legislation. Then read the court decision. You're literally the only one who thinks that intelligence agencies weren't front and center in writing thi
Re: Honestly, they're probably right (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Principle of being able to just do a targeted ban of a specific platform that delivers US users' created content to other US users.
Appeals Court ruling linked lower in the tree provides a good overview in their analysis. They themselves note that this is such a significant action that it requires strict rather than moderate court scrutiny (applied legal standard of analysis).
Re: (Score:2)
Minor correction: the correct term for moderate scrutiny is "intermediate scrutiny". Refer to analysis starting at page 24 of the ruling mentioned above.
They make the argument for it to be banned (Score:5, Interesting)
`Chinese parent company` ... `one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation`
Does nobody else see the inherent danger here?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
`Chinese parent company` ... `one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation`
Does nobody else see the inherent danger here?
Inherent? You don’t even have to dig that hard. TikTok is banned in the very country that controls it.
Pretty much says it all. Openly and blatantly.
Re: They make the argument for it to be banned (Score:1)
China has a version that complies with Chinese law, like the USA has one that complies with USA law.
What's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Its literally being shut down in a month for NOT complying with US law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the "US law" being sell to another company or else.
Because they 1) Allegedly have ties to the Chinese Communist Government due to being a Chinese company, and 2) Allegedly store user data in China.
How is that different from any other Chinese tech company that does business in the US?
If the US doesn't want user data hosted in foreign countries, then pass that law and applying it to all foreign companies across the board. But don't use force of government to single out one just and try to make them do t
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem? The CCP version of tiktok has app time limits for kids and doesn't show them anything but uplifting, positive videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
aren't we supposed to be better than china about open speech?
starting a competition to see which country can ban the most apps is a shitty way to go.
Re:They make the argument for it to be banned (Score:4, Insightful)
We're Americans who believe in "American exceptionalism".....we constantly tell ourselves bullshit that isn't true!
Re:They make the argument for it to be banned (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck is up with this "free to leave" shit.
This is a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't TikTok also have free speech rights? Companies are people after all...
Re: (Score:2)
aren't we supposed to be better than china about open speech?
starting a competition to see which country can ban the most apps is a shitty way to go.
There is no free speech interest in allowing hostile foreign powers to conduct information warfare against the US.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is some universal principle here then Twitter and Facebook need to go as well. Twitter is Musk's personal propaganda platform, but also heavily infiltrated by Russia and China. The Chinese were complaining about how many people are leaving Twitter, after they invested a lot of time into fake accounts and networks. Facebook is just wall to wall scams and political manipulation, even post 2016.
Re: (Score:1)
one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation
Used by young people and leans left. If the poles were reversed this wouldn't even be an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I see the danger. People are about to say the government has, and should have, the power to shutdown Newspaper X, if it's owned by foreigners. We might want to add a few words to the First Amendment, e.g. "unless the press is foreign-owned" to help clarify the new law for laymen.
Also, we're going to see if the government really has the power (not legally, but in terms of actual capabilities) to shutdown a software application. So many of this program's users get it from one of two centralized reposito
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I see the danger. People are about to say the government has, and should have, the power to shutdown Newspaper X, if it's owned by foreigners. We might want to add a few words to the First Amendment, e.g. "unless the press is foreign-owned" to help clarify the new law for laymen.
No need for clarification. The US constitution is explicitly for the United States of America not China.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."
Also, we're going to see if the government really has the power (not legally, but in terms of actual capabilities) to shutdown a software application. So many of this program's users get it from one of two centralized repositories, both of whom are extremely vulnerable to coercion.
LOL what are they going to do run it completely out of China and go ad free?
Um, no (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook? YouTube? (Score:1)
Facebook supported terrorists and refused to comply with Chinese law. They deserve to be banned.
Google decided not to serve users in China. That was their decision, and they're not banned...
Re: Facebook? YouTube? (Score:1)
Also, both are accessible from within China (yes, without needing a vpn). If you don't know how, then you're just ignorant.
The key is that neither are viable businesses inside China without complying with Chinese law. It's called digital sovereignty.
CEO met Trump at Mar-a-Lago (Score:5, Informative)
Tiktok's CEO met Trump at Mar-a-Lago [bbc.com].
Trump wanted to ban Tiktok in his first term, but now opposes a ban ...
Re:CEO met Trump at Mar-a-Lago (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is always for sale.
hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It is not up to TikTok Ltd or ByteDance to decide what is blocked in China.
Re: (Score:2)
this could go from bad to worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
The TikTok ban and its appeal to the Supreme Court have reignited debate over free speech, national security, and data privacy. TikTok, owned by Chinese parent company ByteDance, argues the ban violates its First Amendment rights and those of its 170 million U.S. users. But this issue is far more complex than simply “free speech good, bans bad.”
At its core, the ban reflects a mix of national security, data privacy, and digital sovereignty concerns:
– Lawmakers claim that ByteDance’s Chinese ownership means the CCP could access U.S. user data or manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to spread propaganda. While no public evidence has been shared to date, the potential for harm has driven bipartisan support for the ban.
– The situation echoes Cold War fears of foreign influence via media. In the 20th century, it was Soviet broadcasts; today, it is platforms wielding algorithmic influence over billions of views.
That said, TikTok’s data practices are not unique. U.S.-based companies like Facebook and Google farm behavioral data for profit, targeting users with ads, influence campaigns, and engagement traps. If the concern is data exploitation, singling out TikTok feels more like an issue of ownership—foreign adversaries vs. domestic corporations—rather than a principled stand on user privacy.
There is also an uncomfortable parallel to China’s Great Firewall, where foreign platforms are banned under the guise of national security. For a country that prides itself on free expression, this move risks legitimizing the same digital control tactics we criticize abroad.
The Supreme Court’s role in this now looms large. TikTok is seeking injunctive relief to block enforcement of the law, but the case raises a couple of questions: Does the First Amendment protect a foreign-owned platform operating on U.S. soil? How far can Congress go to limit speech under the umbrella of national security? Historically, the Court has shown broad deference to the government’s power to regulate entities tied to foreign adversaries under the banner of national security:
– During the Cold War, SCOTUS upheld restrictions on Communist Party speech and activities in cases like Dennis v. United States (1951), prioritizing security over free speech.
– Foreign ownership restrictions on U.S. broadcast and telecom infrastructure have long been accepted under similar rationales, codified in laws like the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
– In more recent contexts, courts have deferred to speculative claims about national security risks, such as in Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013), even when concrete harm was not demonstrated.
If this precedent holds, the TikTok ban may survive legal scrutiny—further cementing the government’s power to regulate platforms with foreign ties. However, it raises a troubling question: Could these tools be repurposed to target domestic platforms under similar “national security” claims? Given the president-elect’s explicit hostility toward U.S. media companies—regularly threatening them for unfavorable coverage—it is not far-fetched to imagine similar legislation targeting domestic platforms. Under the same banner of “national security,” the tools used to ban TikTok could be repurposed to pressure or regulate platforms like Facebook and Google for their perceived influence or bias. Once the legal and political groundwork is established, the line between “protecting security” and “silencing critics” becomes dangerously thin.
So, while the performative antics of Congress made the headlines, we are now past that phase. The Supreme Court’s decision may have far-reaching consequences—not only for TikTok’s future but for how the U.S. balances national security, free speech, and digital sovereignty. More worryingly, it could open the door for further restrictions, where the tools of national security become weapons for domestic political control.
This is off-topic (Score:1)
slashdot.org
This page could not be loaded due to incorrect / bad filtering rule(s)Âof adblocker
Error Message:
Error: Failed to load 3rd-party video: undefined. Please enable 3rd-party video loading.
No. And now I visit your site less frequently.
Sure (Score:2)
They certainly can have their day in court to appeal. Meanwhile, wait in Mexico.
congress shall make no law (Score:3)
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.
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas
https://knightcolumbia.org/content/knight-institute-comments-on-challenge-to-federal-tiktok-ban
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/06/dc-circuit-upholds-tiktok-ban-in-alarming-ruling-claiming-it-actually-enhances-free-speech/
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand how the federal government can ban tiktok when the government is restricted by the First Amendment:
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.
You might as well be arguing the government can't shut down a social media platform on first amendment grounds where the company that runs it:
- Stole all of their equipment
- Conducted massive wage theft against their employees
- Used the platform to launder drug money
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to do as you please so long as it is conducted by speaking. For example a hostile foreign power conducting information warfare against the US is an act distinct from speaking.
In this case the issue is unambi
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to do as you please so long as it is conducted by speaking. For example a hostile foreign power conducting information warfare against the US is an act distinct from speaking.
In this case the issue is unambiguously not freedom of speech as evidenced by the fact TikTok would be allowed to continue if China divests.
Can you point out an example of information warfare? What has tiktok done?
I'll note that I'm no fan of the Chinese government, nor do I use tiktok. But I don't understand why is tiktok illegal if it is owned by the Chinese government, but legal if owned by somebody else?
This just "feels like" a do-over of Shenck vs. U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point out an example of information warfare? What has tiktok done?
TikTok just weeks ago tilted the Romanian elections to a Nazi whacknut before the results were annulled by the courts on the grounds of interference.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok just weeks ago tilted the Romanian elections to a Nazi whacknut before the results were annulled by the courts on the grounds of interference.
Doesn't that also happen on Facebook?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/04/facebook-election-misinformation-capitol-riot/
Alternatively, would the Romania elections problem "go away" if tiktok wasn't Chinese?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that also happen on Facebook?
You asked a question and I answered it. Here is another answer...
https://www.newsweek.com/douyi... [newsweek.com]
Is the implication or argument it is unfair to limit China's ability to wage information warfare against the US on the grounds others use or have the ability to use social media for similar shit? This seems to me to be akin to fighting a traffic ticket in court by telling the judge being ticketed is unfair since other people were also speeding and yet they didn't get pulled over.
The US constitution does not e
Re: (Score:2)
The US constitution does not extend to foreign states...
I agree. However, the First Amendment says only that our Congress "shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I see no exception for speech or "press" from hostile foreign governments.
And, yes, China is a hostile foreign government. Don't get me wrong; I don't approve of Xi, or the Chinese government, or the Great Firewall, and I don't use tiktok. I'm not terribly fond of Facebook or X, either. (I am a bit partial to Slashdot...) And, for the sake of discussion, let's agree tha
Re: (Score:2)
The same way they can shut down a pirate radio station, guy.
The right to free speech does not include the right to a platform. That much should be clear after years of cancel culture.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way they can shut down a pirate radio station, guy.
The right to free speech does not include the right to a platform. That much should be clear after years of cancel culture.
I'm skeptical of the "pirate radio" comparison; radio involves finite, shared radio spectrum, and if it wasn't regulated, it would devolve into chaos, and become unusable. And "unusable" is definitely not in the public interest. I see no First Amendment issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to stop them? And what's all this about the First Amendment "restricting" anyone?
DMCA's anti-circumvention provision wasn't ever struck down. That's a law which prohibits certain acts of writing computer programs. Nobody (except nerds) cared, and the nerds were split on if it was good or bad.
FUCK THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Know why I said that? Because the First Amendment isn't
Oh good luck with that! (Score:2)
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Maybe TikTok should sell to (or form) a company that is not wholly in the pocket of the Chinese government after all. It's a reasonable request. They are a national security threat.
It's about time they became an abusive, but independent, corporate overlord like the other companies.
no chance (Score:2)
One has to ask (Score:2)