US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#2> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#3> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
[flagged]
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#4> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
I think that the first amendment prevents congress from banning tiktok for the reason that the content is objectionable. Instead they would need to argue that it is a nation security risk (spyware, etc)
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#5> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
Even if it deals with national security, the law must pass either strict or intermediate scrutiny [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I think it won't.
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#6> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
The "National security" needs of the day trumps the 1st amendment. Only U.S. (and a certain other place which won't be named) propaganda is allowed.
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#7> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
The "National security" needs of the day trumps the 1st amendment. Only U.S. (and a certain other place which won't be named) propaganda is allowed.
Foreign propaganda is allowed. (Lamont vs. Postmaster General)
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#8> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
What do you make of limits/approval regimes for broadcast services then?
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "National security" needs of the day trumps the 1st amendment. Only U.S. (and a certain other place which won't be named) propaganda is allowed.
Foreign propaganda is allowed. (Lamont vs. Postmaster General) https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...
Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?
Re: US court to hear challenges to potential TikTok ban in September
#10Is September a fast track though? Outside of IT I feel everything is moving at slow motion. Sure they need armies of lawyers but I assume they already hired a lot? Why not a direct ban but requires the army of lawyers to request an appeal? I bet this would send motions faster -- they won't wait for 4 months.