By American Civil Liberties Union WASHINGTON — The House Energy and Commerce Committee announced it would be voting on a bill this Thursday that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. T…
The law is freedom of speech from government persecution. Which is literally what banning Tik Tok is.
Except that’s not what this bill is. It’s about banning certain apps and websites which are under the control of an adversarial government. The speech is fine, but the platform moderating that speech isn’t, and the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect foreign entities. The Supreme Court upheld in Bluman v. Fed. Election Commission that limits on foreign entities’ speech can be greater than what would be constitutional for US citizens. And this isn’t even about speech, it’s about the platform of that speech.
It’s the government persecuting a company for being Chinese.
True, but only if “Chinese” means “operated in part by the Chinese government/CCP.” This isn’t about the the race or ethnicity; it’s about the government.
We have similar bans in place for other constitutionally-protected activities involving other countries. Import of Russian firearms and ammo is banned despite the right to keep and bear arms.
What the law does not protect is private persecution. If you come to my house and announce you’re a pedo, I can kick you out of my house for that. Just like tik tok can ban you.
You can kick them out for any reason because they dont have the right to be on your property. This article is touting that the bill is an attack on free speech as a right, but TikTok and other social media platforms are not examples of free speech. Instead, this bill is about limiting the ability of foreign powers to control the spread of information in the US, similar to how we already limit the ability of foreign powers to finance our elections.
Actually that’s not correct. Media isn’t like other products, it’s protected speech. This is why even though we’ve sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.
This is why this “ban” isn’t a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn’t block Tik Tok or it’s website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores. So if they don’t divest, you could still go to their website and download their app. With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you’ll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.
So what’s all this really about? Propaganda and showmanship. They’re just pushing a China bad narrative as realistically our 1A laws prevent them from doing anything actually effective here.
Actually that’s not correct. Media isn’t like other products, it’s protected speech. This is why even though we’ve sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.
Yes, while speech is protected, but the platform’s operations, websites, and apps are not. No foreign entity has a legal right to operate commercially in the United States. We’ve had sanctions and tariffs for years. 1A applies to free speech of Americans.
This is why this “ban” isn’t a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn’t block Tik Tok or it’s website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores.
With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you’ll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.
Not relevant to USA because Apple could allow this only in the EU. And not applicable because websites are covered by the bill.
Yes, they can’t operate the website in USA so they’ll operate it in Canada and Mexico. And yes, that’s why they’re targeting the stores and not the site, because the only thing they can do is prevent operations inside the country but they cannot block access to it.
Finally, of course technically Apple could only allow EU to do this, but much like their transition to USB-C it would be weird if they did that. ESPECIALLY since having Tik Tok on their phones would be a benefit to them, not a negative.
*Edit: Also I was defining free speech in my initial post, which you seem to agree with. I was not trying to define this abhorrent loophole of a bill that bans but doesn’t ban because of 1A Tik Tok. And if you don’t understand why the government trying to loophole out of the constitution is bad, well I have no words.
Except that’s not what this bill is. It’s about banning certain apps and websites which are under the control of an adversarial government. The speech is fine, but the platform moderating that speech isn’t, and the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect foreign entities. The Supreme Court upheld in Bluman v. Fed. Election Commission that limits on foreign entities’ speech can be greater than what would be constitutional for US citizens. And this isn’t even about speech, it’s about the platform of that speech.
True, but only if “Chinese” means “operated in part by the Chinese government/CCP.” This isn’t about the the race or ethnicity; it’s about the government.
We have similar bans in place for other constitutionally-protected activities involving other countries. Import of Russian firearms and ammo is banned despite the right to keep and bear arms.
You can kick them out for any reason because they dont have the right to be on your property. This article is touting that the bill is an attack on free speech as a right, but TikTok and other social media platforms are not examples of free speech. Instead, this bill is about limiting the ability of foreign powers to control the spread of information in the US, similar to how we already limit the ability of foreign powers to finance our elections.
Actually that’s not correct. Media isn’t like other products, it’s protected speech. This is why even though we’ve sanctioned Russia, you can still go and read Russian Times. Even foreign media, which Tik Tok is, would be protected under our free speech laws.
This is why this “ban” isn’t a ban, which the senators keep repeating. It doesn’t block Tik Tok or it’s website from being used by Americans. All it does is block Tik Tok from being distributed by American app stores. So if they don’t divest, you could still go to their website and download their app. With the new EU ruling, Apple is going to have to allow third party installation anyway, so you’ll still be able to use Tik Tok as if nothing happened.
So what’s all this really about? Propaganda and showmanship. They’re just pushing a China bad narrative as realistically our 1A laws prevent them from doing anything actually effective here.
Yes, while speech is protected, but the platform’s operations, websites, and apps are not. No foreign entity has a legal right to operate commercially in the United States. We’ve had sanctions and tariffs for years. 1A applies to free speech of Americans.
Not true. Read the bill. Websites are addressed.
Not relevant to USA because Apple could allow this only in the EU. And not applicable because websites are covered by the bill.
Yes, they can’t operate the website in USA so they’ll operate it in Canada and Mexico. And yes, that’s why they’re targeting the stores and not the site, because the only thing they can do is prevent operations inside the country but they cannot block access to it.
Finally, of course technically Apple could only allow EU to do this, but much like their transition to USB-C it would be weird if they did that. ESPECIALLY since having Tik Tok on their phones would be a benefit to them, not a negative.
*Edit: Also I was defining free speech in my initial post, which you seem to agree with. I was not trying to define this abhorrent loophole of a bill that bans but doesn’t ban because of 1A Tik Tok. And if you don’t understand why the government trying to loophole out of the constitution is bad, well I have no words.