11–20 of 110 posts
> 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?
> 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?
> 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?
By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.)
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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?
> 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.
Is 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Is 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.
ALso, the bill doesn't ban Tiktok. It forces Bytedance to sell Tiktok to a US controlled entity so the US security state can more easily threaten them and force them to censor their anti-imperialist content.
This legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan supported and placed under national security, in an election year, whose court case will happen by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed before Jan 19th ban. But the election is 1 month prior.
That this most likely will become an election issue where republicans and democrats can 'be on the same page' about and show some unity.