Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#521

Post by DoneWithAllThat »

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Like you can just go read the opinion. It goes into detail on exactly this question and is easy to understand.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#522

Post by intermerda »

rayiner wrote: post #244
mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

You misapprehend what textualism is. It does not say that every legal case can be decided by interpreting written law. It is merely a philosophy of how to interpret written law when its meaning is what's at issue. What American lawyers call "textualism" is how most continental european courts interpret written laws. It would hardly merit a label, if it wasn't for a long history in the 20th century of jurists departin…

> Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Textualism in modern context is a tool used by conservative justices used to uphold laws that serve business interests and conservative causes.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#523

Post by ceejayoz »

rayiner wrote: post #244
mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

You misapprehend what textualism is. It does not say that every legal case can be decided by interpreting written law. It is merely a philosophy of how to interpret written law when its meaning is what's at issue. What American lawyers call "textualism" is how most continental european courts interpret written laws. It would hardly merit a label, if it wasn't for a long history in the 20th century of jurists departin…

> Another example that highlights the distinction...

No, that just highlights the hypocritical picking-and-choosing they do to justify it. Gorsuch is a textualist when he wants to be, just like the others.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#524

Post by Cookingboy »

_2d30 wrote: post #390
throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been. There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

>owever, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

How is it self-incrimination? That logic doesn't work.

80% of TikTok's users are outside of the U.S., why would they sell the whole thing?

And the law is written in a way that there is no value to just sell the American operation without the algorithm, they have to sell the whole thing, including the algorithm, in order for there to be a serious buyer.

It's technology highway robbery. Imagine if China told Apple "sell to us or be banned", we'd tell them to pound sand too.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#525

Post by hintymad »

elzbardico wrote: post #181

This is going to be an interesting experiment: A widely used social network across the world WITHOUT american content. Until now, the closest thing we had like this were national our regional networks like Russia's vk, but Vk was never truly popular outside Russian speaking countries. Now we, for the first time ever, will have the situation where a social network has global reach but without american content. Will it…

> This is going to be an interesting experiment: A widely used social network across the world WITHOUT american content.

China has had such social networks for a long time. Their Weibo and Xiaohongshu are two prominent examples. Weibo started as a copycat of Twitter, but then beats Twitter hands-down with faster iterations, better features, and more vibrant user engagement despite the gross censorship imposed by the government.

My guess is that TT can still thrive without American content, as long as other governments do not interfere as the US did. A potential threat to TT is that the US still has the best consumer market, so creators may still flock to a credible TT-alternative for better monetization, thus snatching away TT's current user base in other countries.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#526

Post by randomcatuser »

_2d30 wrote: post #390
throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

Because there is no "TikTok" ban and never has been. There is a "TikTok cannot be controlled by the CCP" law. TikTok is completely legal under the law as long as they divest it. However, in a great act of self-incrimination, Bytedance (de facto controlled by CCP) has decided to not divest and would rather shutdown instead.

The divestiture clause is just a red herring -- sure, that sounds perfectly fine. But you can substitute it (in the future) with anything.

In the future, the owners of a free press will be permitted to operate if and only if there is board seat made out to a CIA member. Unions will be permitted to congregate as long as they register with the Office of Trade Security

All in all, a huge blow to the potential power of individual rights (essentially goes to the Founding Fathers' point that having a list of rights set in stone is NOT the end-all, be-all, it's who decides the rights that count)

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#527

Post by gs17 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #327
ddoolin wrote: post #5

FWIW, this has driven many users to RedNote, which is even more Chinese in every way, regardless of whether it's even the same kind of platform. I doubt it would ever be anywhere near the same numbers as TikTok (assuming ByteDance didn't sell off) but it does illustrate the trouble with this i.e. cat-and-mouse game. Edited for word choice.

I feel like the protest move to RedNote will be short lived. The censorship there is draconian - if you say even the slightest thing that offends the CCP on red note, you get banned. See this discussion on the subreddit for TikTok ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTok/comments/1i2wll3/how_to_not_... ). Something I read that’s interesting - RedNote changed the English name to cover their actual name - the Chinese name is…

> the Chinese name is little red book, as in the red book of Mao (not sure if true)

That is the Chinese name of the app (although I've heard mixed reports on if "little red book" as a term for the book actually common in China). The founder claims it's because of the founder's "career at Bain & Company and education at the Stanford Graduate School of Business" which both use red, but I'm pretty sure it's a pun on his name also being Mao.

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#528

Post by lolinder »

rayiner wrote: post #244
mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

You misapprehend what textualism is. It does not say that every legal case can be decided by interpreting written law. It is merely a philosophy of how to interpret written law when its meaning is what's at issue. What American lawyers call "textualism" is how most continental european courts interpret written laws. It would hardly merit a label, if it wasn't for a long history in the 20th century of jurists departin…

For anyone curious to dig into this more, the terms to read up on are "common law" [0] vs "civil law" [1].

Common law is basically just the US, UK, AU, and NZ. Outside the anglosphere it's mostly civil law.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#529

Post by ruilov »

throwaway199956 wrote: post #342

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publications were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone…

The replies here seem slightly off base. The Court acknowledges that 1s amm. free speech issues are at play. A law can regulate non-expressive activity (corporate ownership) while still burdening expressive activity, which is the case here. In such instances, the Court grants Congress more leeway compared to laws explicitly targeting speech. It checks that (1) the govt has an important interest unrelated to speech (it does), and (2) the law burdens no more speech than necessary (arguable, but not obviously wrong)

Re: Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline

#530

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 »

kube-system wrote: post #442
mrcwinn wrote: post #15

Regardless of one’s view on the outcome, this case is a reminder that textualism as a legal philosophy stands on shaky ground. This case is decided not on some strict analysis of the words written by a legislator, but on the court’s subjective view that there is a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). Textualism might give t…

> a compelling national interest (which in turn seems based on speculation about the future, rather than a factual analysis of events). I keep seeing this claimed, but these aren't hypothetical risks. China has managerial control over ByteDance. China has laws that require prominent companies to cooperate in their national security operations, and they've recently strengthened them even more. China has already exerci…

Let's not forget that the US government has forced US companies to secretly hand over user data for "national security" purposes. Anyone who denies that China does similar things either doesn't know how the world works or is consciously denying reality.
Post reply on HN