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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by gnkyfrg »

lynndotpy wrote: post #853
toddmorey wrote: post #643

Anyone here who's not a TikTok content creator reasonably upset about losing access to the platform? Can you tell me why it will sting for you? I was really surprised that my daughters (avid teenage TikTok users) are much more relieved than mad. Both said they wasted too much time on TikTok and were hoping life will now feel better. Seems the very thing that made the platform sticky puts it in a guilty pleasure categ…

I don't create for TikTok, I have never had a TikTok account, and I don't use TikTok, outside of being exposed to videos on other sites, or occasionally clicking a link. I had been exposed to DouYin before, but my first experience of TikTok in real life was someone at a party, holding their phone, exclaiming something along the lines of "I can't look away, it's so addictive." It was uncomfortable, and I'm aware of ho…

[dead]

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

#872

Post by garbagewoman »

yobid20 wrote: post #720
joshfee wrote: post #584

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.

This is affecting the free speech rights of US citizens directly. You might wish it was as simple as you try to portray it, but it clearly isn’t

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

#873

Post by garbagewoman »

nilsbunger wrote: post #728
joshfee wrote: post #584

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

This is a limitation on foreign control of TikTok, not a limitation on speech. TikTok can stay in the us market if it eliminates the foreign control

That’s very vague and theoretical

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

#874

Post by garbagewoman »

imgabe wrote: post #823
joshfee wrote: post #584

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

Congress is explicitly empowered in the Constitution to regulate foreign trade. Free speech is not relevant.

Free speech is relevant if issues of free speech are involved, which they are here.

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

#876

Post by lupire »

joshfee wrote: post #584

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

That's not right.

Publishing is speech (Bernstein vs United States).

Unpublishing the app would avoid the effects of the Act.

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

#877

Post by MollyRealized »

Just as an aside, I'm surprised that Instagram has done nothing to facilitate the migration it wants. I've been hitting the same old rate limits while trying to "migrate" by subscribing to creators who have IG accounts as well. It's now got me down to one or two a day. Not only have they not made it easier ("import your export data file here, we'll subscribe you to everyone with the same handle"), they are making it quite hard.

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

#878

Post by jmholla »

yobid20 wrote: post #720
joshfee wrote: post #584

I think the easiest answer to follow for "why is this not prevented by free speech protection" is "the fact that petitioners “cannot avoid or mitigate” the effects of the Act by altering their speech." (page 10 of this ruling, but is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_In... )

Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply. The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.

> Simple answer. A chinese owned company has no such rights or protections. Free speech does not apply.

The Constitution does not place limits on which people are protected by it (you don't have to be a citizen for it to apply as the founders were looking to limit the powers of their government not their citizens). And with the expansion of those protections to corporations through Citizens United, I'd be surprised if a court found that `company + foreign != person + foreign` when they've decided `company == person`. (Well not surprised by this Court.)

> The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.

The rest of your comment still stands right in my eyes. National Security has often been used as a means to bypass many things enshrined by the Constitution.

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

#879

Post by victor106 »

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…

TikTok is banned in India too

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

#880

Post by [deleted] »

ruilov wrote: post #529
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 (i…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN