The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging free speech. There is no limit placed on who is entitled to that right.
There was generally always considered to be 5 things that were not protected under the First Amendment. I doubt think any of the founders would disagree with the notion that the following where not protected under the First Amendment. 1. Libel 2. Slander 3. Treason 4. Certain threats / incitement to violence (like hiring a hit man) 5. Obscenity
All of those are examples of limiting what is considered free speech, none of them limit who is allowed free speech.
The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging free speech. There is no limit placed on who is entitled to that right.
There is no limit in the text but it has been limited by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court has the force of law.
I could only find one ruling limiting who is allowed free speech, though my search wasn't thorough. Border control was allowed to bar people from entry based on protected speech made outside the country.
Good. We have something called "due process" in the US, and the attempted TikTok ban violates it. Due process is a bedrock of American law. It means government officials can't just "do what they want" and make arbitrary decisions with specific targets -- which is exactly what the TikTok ban is. You want to ban TikTok? Great, you need a specific law from Congress that outlines under what circumstances companies may be…
Exactly. As far as I'm aware, TikTok is pretty much malware, meant to collect every single possible piece of information it can get access to on your phone, so I would recommend everybody to avoid it, and I'm not opposed to a ban at all. What matters is the way it's banned. And why. And the current process feels every bit as wrong as TikTok itself. What the US needs is proper data protection laws. And then it should…
How much data can TikTok get on my phone without me knowing?
Also how is this different than Twitter that was getting a list of all installed apps until Apple tightened down on the method they used and everything that FB and Google does.
Good. We have something called "due process" in the US, and the attempted TikTok ban violates it. Due process is a bedrock of American law. It means government officials can't just "do what they want" and make arbitrary decisions with specific targets -- which is exactly what the TikTok ban is. You want to ban TikTok? Great, you need a specific law from Congress that outlines under what circumstances companies may be…
I am uninformed here. Isn't CFIUS due process? This started back in November 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive/ex...
Yes CFIUS is due process but this executive order isn't CFIUS. CFIUS can order the unwinding of the original deal but not some arbitrary action including demanding a sales commission.
Anybody else binging on tiktok before it gets banned and in the remote chance an American can’t save it by buying it from bytedance ?
In a world with more quality entertainment than one could consume in their lifetime, no. I never even started on tiktok, since it offered so little in comparison to everything else out there. But, as with everything, that’s just my opinion.
I hope they win. Living in China, I told my friends here that at least they will have their day in court - a win would really help show an advantage of the US system in a high-profile way. Trump is doing so much to hurt the US image among Chinese citizens right now. His administration emphasizes the importance of the distinction between the government and the people, but his actions are only driving the two closer to…
> There’s no way I can get rid of WeChat... Just strong network effects, or what
Yeah, including everyone at work and our customers. I could do payments through Alipay, but there’s no way people are going to accommodate me in other ways.
I don't get why he decided to ban tik tok and tencent and I'm not the biggest fan of his by any stretch of the imagination, but if America wants to ban 1 Chinese app, why is that an issue? They literally copied silicon valley businesses for decades in China. The problem I have with this though, is that it's not a way to get protect American interests, it's probably the first in a series of last ditch efforts to portr…
Because permitting banning apps without due process is a dangerous precedent. Next up will be Signal because you could use it to talk to dangerous foreign nationals, or VPN apps because you could send secret data to the evil-state-du-jour. Process matters, even if this particular app doesn't.
You're right, obv. Just got caught up in the fear of what the implications of this are on one side.
Really? 27% of Germans support the right to speech that offends minority groups, and less than half of Europeans as a whole [0]. A Swedish man was convicted for producing art that was deemed racist, and the owner of the gallery that displayed it was fined [1]. A man was famously prosecuted for a video of a dog performing a nazi salute [2]. A refugee may be expelled from Denmark after he left comments "celebrating" th…
Reasonable people can disagree about the limits of free speech, and when it becomes an attack on others. The American obsession with allowing Nazis and racists has done nothing to improve the lives of its people.
I think you're missing the point. An "attack on others" isn't something that most Americans should be limited, if you mean by attack what I believe you do (please clarify). I'm not sure why you think the power to limit speech can't be abused: even with strict protections, we've had awful majoritarian policies like the Sedition Act and McCarthyism. We protect everyone, Nazis and racists included, because if we give the government freedom to restrict the content of speech it will be abused when the "other side" gets power.
As long as they have standing and a chance of winning (their claims aren't frivolous) then a court might grant an injunction against the 45 day compulsory sale while this lawsuit proceeds.