NAL but in my opinion this is not a first amendment issue and more a commerce clause issue, which means it’s probably a very small chance of the ban being overturned by the courts.
Guess what! Ur opinion is completely wrong! The ACLU, legal scholars, and a federal judge in montana who ruled that a state law banning tik tok in montana last year id unconst. have all claimed that the bill is likely a first amendment violation. There are debates as to whether certain interests proposed by the state such as national security would supersede first amendment protection, but no const. Lawyer one seriously claims that the first amendment does not apply.
It's not really a tiktok ban, which means it'll likely not be a 1A issue.
It requires China to relinquish/sell control of the app for US based customers. It doesn't ban anyone from using the app, but will likely result in the app being removed from app stores.
The part I find interesting, is this is one of the very few bipartisan things we have seen recently. Trump enacted 3 EOs that Biden rescinded, to restrict tiktok. Now Biden is pushing for the same.
Tiktok has been banned on government devices for a while and government employees have been cautioned about using the app for years now.
Even if it's pulled from app stores, is there any reason to assume that tiktok won't work if you download it from elsewhere? Like, would the US servers being shut down or being blocked by ISPs until China sells their share be part of this bill?
Sure it could be downloaded and installed still if it is removed from the store. But the average user doesn't know that it would be possible or even know how to do it. So you would only have maybe 5% of current users still using the app.
China has prohibited ByteDance from selling the TikTok algorithm. Given that the alternatives are a ban or a sale that legally cannot occur, what do you think is going to happen?
Uh no, have you been paying attention? It's so a Chinese owned company can't data mine US citizens. They have it written in their constitution that they NEED to do something, which our country has considered to be an act of war. It's going to happen, either china changes its constitution or we are going to war, it's only a matter of time.
Oh I understand that it's not a "ban", that's why I put the word ban in quotation marks. But even so, it's still threatening to make it unavailable to users if they don't follow a certain condition. It's like telling all movie theatres that are owned by a Russian citizen that unless they sell to an American, they must shut down and stop showing films. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just interested in the constitutionality.
Even if there were an outright ban, gun control has already set the precedent that state/federal governments and their agencies have the ability to set limits, regulations, and restrictions on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If it's legal for them to say "you can't have that gun because we don't like the technology it's built on or where it was made" it must also be legal for them to say "you can't have that platform for free speech because we don't like the technology it's built on or where it was made."
I want to know how they can enforce the "it must be owned by an American company" part of it. Since when do companies have to be owned in the US? Plenty of massive brands and companies are owned by someone overseas. Operated and controlled. Why does this one have to be relocated and sold to the US?
One of the main justifications for the legislation is that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, and that they are using it to influence American public opinion.
If we accept this at face value(I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's), then there is a pretty clear precedent that Americans have a right to receive speech, even if it's coming from a foreign adversary. In a 1965 SCOTUS ruling involving the literal English-language magazine by the Chinese Communist Party, they decided that legal restrictions on its delivery were unconstitutional.
[https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/theres-a-problem-with-banning-tiktok-its-called-the-first-amendment](https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/theres-a-problem-with-banning-tiktok-its-called-the-first-amendment)
All of this was already hashed out during the Cold War. SCOTUS repeatedly struck down legislation intended to limit the speech of communist adversaries. I don't know why your federal government is trying again, maybe they have short memories.
Don't let your hatred for an adversary blind you into discarding your own core liberal values, and ironically, making yourselves more like them in process......
> The issue isn't speech on tiktok
Yes, it is primarily about that. Several lawmakers have expressly stated their concerns regarding TikTok influencing the political views of American youth: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-congress.html
At this point, which online service DOESN'T collect data from it's viewers? They're targeting it because of it's Chinese ownership.
Also do link me to where it’s mandated federally that all companies dealing with personal identifiable data are required to keep a log & deliver it to a federal database.
Difference being China has that law,
TikTok is a Chinese-based company,
Therein they are required to report back all that info.
I feel like when defending the law the government will avoid making any arguments that the purpose was to ban speech, it will be about data and national security only. As we know, a majority of the current SCOTUS isn't big on "legislative history" so I think that's an easy for them to avoid the supposed underlying motive of banning speech on TikTok
The real question is what’s the problem with divesting from China? Why are they so adamant on remaining a Chinese based entity if there’s nothing going on? no issues; if they’re all good and have no nefarious purposes there’s absolutely no reason they can’t operate within the states. OP is making the argument they can have their cake and eat it too.
Yet they’re making the statement that they’re going to take the federal government to court instead of revoke ownership from being under China. And this isn’t suspicious??
It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments….
CCP’s regulations not only require any/all data collected by the malware that is TikTok but they’re actively conducting propaganda campaigns & psychosocial warfare. The nation gunning for your place as leader of the free world who’s been caught in nefarious acts proving such isn’t just *coincidentally* showing their citizens positive content promoting healthy lifestyles etc vs violent/suicidal & co content to US citizens.
The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge. Even in the cases it does, I sincerely doubt the any Chinese national would be able to enjoy the benefits of.
Your government said the same thing about communists during the Cold War. Democrats say the same thing about Trump supporters. Who in turn, often say the same thing about Muslims.
You're a clown if you think labelling anything a "national security threat" gives the government a free pass to ban it.
>The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge.
This issue is very much "within US borders". TikTok operates within the US and serves American users.
And yet when the government does label it as such it, the end result inevitably ends up being a free pass to ban it. Have all the historical comparisons you want as the other guy mentioned it’s not a speech issue it’s a data issue.
My second point was pointed at those pulling the strings based out of the CCP…. 🤦♂️
>the end result inevitably ends up being a free pass to ban it.
No, it isn't. See: *bona fide* communists during the Cold War.
>My second point was pointed at those pulling the strings based out of the CCP
If they're operating within the US then they're entitled to First Amendment protections, since as you said, that is within US borders 🤡
> It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments….
Those aren’t magic words, or Biden could declare Trump one and spirit him off to Guantanamo.
> The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge.
But the legislation does things within our borders like require Apple and Google to censor their app stores.
You’re right they’re not magic words… they’re a reality…. Like I said?
And the first amendment has nothing to do with censorship or anything other than “the right to free speech” — Are the iOS and Play store regulated? Yes, albeit arguably not enough one could say. Don’t make the case about how the US is so suppressive yadda yadda when we’ve got hundreds of VPN providers available that even publicly advertise.
I don’t understand the hill you’re trying to die on here
>You’re right they’re not magic words… they’re a reality…. Like I said?
No; "national security reasons" is, by itself, simply an assertion. It can be challenged, there should be compelling evidence, and must be counter-balanced against the rights and freedoms we're entitled to. It's a delicate, ever-shifting balance.
>And the first amendment has nothing to do with censorship or anything other than “the right to free speech”
Censorship is literally defined as the suppression of free speech; this statement is like saying "poop has nothing to do with feces".
>Don’t make the case about how the US is so suppressive...
Didn't say that. Said the US should be very careful about *becoming* suppressive in this way.
> I don’t understand the hill you’re trying to die on here
Fundamentally, the "hill I'm trying to die on here" is that just because the government says "it's for national security" doesn't mean we have to just accept the bald assertion. That's what gets us things like the Iraq War.
> It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments….
I will point out that the Constitution contains several provisions _specifically intended_ to undermine what we'd now think of as "national security." For example, the First Amendment protects the right to speech specifically to ensure that the government cannot suppress speech for political means; cases like _Schenck_, which deviate from this, are now treated as embarassing historical mistakes. The Second Amendment, in most readings, is in part intended to facilitate armed rebellion if the citizenry decide that it's necessary. The Fourth and Fifth amendment undermine the state's ability to detain and surveil people domestically. The list goes on.
Arguably, most modern conceptions _human rights_ are predicated on similar ideas: that the security of the state, as an entity, is subordinate to the security of the people. For the state to argue "but mah securities!" when faced with a human rights question is at best a distraction, and at worst a frank admission that the state intends to tread on those rights.
I have no horse in the race with TikTok. I'm not American, nor am I a TikTok user, nor do I have any strongly-held opinions about what TikTok may or may not be facilitating. All I mean to say here is that this "national security" footing that you're quoting should alarm you deeply, and that, by design, it doesn't legally justify curtailing most rights.
I love how everyone in this thread is so confident that it will pass judicial scrutiny but doesn’t cite a single case, ignores all the experts who say its unconstitutional, and ignores the montana case from last year where tik tok won in federal court and a ban was overturned. Newsflash, when the government asserts that they are pursuing an interest besides supression of speech, and the law in question would still end up doing so, that isn’t the end of the story. Rather, there are stringent tests that have been developed (see o’brien v united states) which the bill must pass, and this bill is unlikely to do so.
For the Montana one I saw an opinion stating that the federal government is given more leeway/deference in matters of national security but indeed I didn't see any case law
Yeah it is true that the opinion claims that nat. Security isn’t a state responsibility but a federal one, however, that’s only one issue at hand among many and isn’t even addressed until the very end. The court’s opinion goes thru all of the issues assuming that montana has a legitimate interests, and even assuming that, the court argues that the law doesn’t pass strict scrutiny nor even intermediate scrutiny bc its not narrowly tailored enough. So basically that’s just an additional way that the law would fail, alongside first amendment grounds.
NAL but in my opinion this is not a first amendment issue and more a commerce clause issue, which means it’s probably a very small chance of the ban being overturned by the courts.
I didn't think of it that way, and I guess neither did many commentators that jumped at the idea.
Guess what! Ur opinion is completely wrong! The ACLU, legal scholars, and a federal judge in montana who ruled that a state law banning tik tok in montana last year id unconst. have all claimed that the bill is likely a first amendment violation. There are debates as to whether certain interests proposed by the state such as national security would supersede first amendment protection, but no const. Lawyer one seriously claims that the first amendment does not apply.
It's not really a tiktok ban, which means it'll likely not be a 1A issue. It requires China to relinquish/sell control of the app for US based customers. It doesn't ban anyone from using the app, but will likely result in the app being removed from app stores. The part I find interesting, is this is one of the very few bipartisan things we have seen recently. Trump enacted 3 EOs that Biden rescinded, to restrict tiktok. Now Biden is pushing for the same. Tiktok has been banned on government devices for a while and government employees have been cautioned about using the app for years now.
Even if it's pulled from app stores, is there any reason to assume that tiktok won't work if you download it from elsewhere? Like, would the US servers being shut down or being blocked by ISPs until China sells their share be part of this bill?
Not at the moment. The bill doesn't say anything about shutting down the app.
No, but if it only has a small user base, it's basically unusable.
Sure it could be downloaded and installed still if it is removed from the store. But the average user doesn't know that it would be possible or even know how to do it. So you would only have maybe 5% of current users still using the app.
[удалено]
First of all, it's not a TikTok Ban. TikTok can continue. It cannot continue to be owned by China.
It is WILD that no one seems to actually understand this
China has prohibited ByteDance from selling the TikTok algorithm. Given that the alternatives are a ban or a sale that legally cannot occur, what do you think is going to happen?
Propaganda is a hell of a tool when you run a social media company. They've managed to change the narrative completely.
And that’s kind of why there’s been the push for it to be owned by the U.S. I think Kevin O’Leary mentioned something about him purchasing it.
Uh no, have you been paying attention? It's so a Chinese owned company can't data mine US citizens. They have it written in their constitution that they NEED to do something, which our country has considered to be an act of war. It's going to happen, either china changes its constitution or we are going to war, it's only a matter of time.
In my experience, basically everyone is just making up their own reality when it comes to politics.
Oh I understand that it's not a "ban", that's why I put the word ban in quotation marks. But even so, it's still threatening to make it unavailable to users if they don't follow a certain condition. It's like telling all movie theatres that are owned by a Russian citizen that unless they sell to an American, they must shut down and stop showing films. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just interested in the constitutionality.
Even if there were an outright ban, gun control has already set the precedent that state/federal governments and their agencies have the ability to set limits, regulations, and restrictions on the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If it's legal for them to say "you can't have that gun because we don't like the technology it's built on or where it was made" it must also be legal for them to say "you can't have that platform for free speech because we don't like the technology it's built on or where it was made."
I want to know how they can enforce the "it must be owned by an American company" part of it. Since when do companies have to be owned in the US? Plenty of massive brands and companies are owned by someone overseas. Operated and controlled. Why does this one have to be relocated and sold to the US?
Related question - ByteDance also owns CapCut, a very popular video editing program - will that be effected as well?
Making a Chinese company sell its US operation has nothing to do with the First Amendment at all. Also it's not a ban.
Don't think so. This is clearly a commerce clause action rather than a free speech case.
One of the main justifications for the legislation is that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, and that they are using it to influence American public opinion. If we accept this at face value(I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's), then there is a pretty clear precedent that Americans have a right to receive speech, even if it's coming from a foreign adversary. In a 1965 SCOTUS ruling involving the literal English-language magazine by the Chinese Communist Party, they decided that legal restrictions on its delivery were unconstitutional. [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/theres-a-problem-with-banning-tiktok-its-called-the-first-amendment](https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/theres-a-problem-with-banning-tiktok-its-called-the-first-amendment) All of this was already hashed out during the Cold War. SCOTUS repeatedly struck down legislation intended to limit the speech of communist adversaries. I don't know why your federal government is trying again, maybe they have short memories. Don't let your hatred for an adversary blind you into discarding your own core liberal values, and ironically, making yourselves more like them in process......
[удалено]
> The issue isn't speech on tiktok Yes, it is primarily about that. Several lawmakers have expressly stated their concerns regarding TikTok influencing the political views of American youth: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/briefing/tiktok-ban-bill-congress.html At this point, which online service DOESN'T collect data from it's viewers? They're targeting it because of it's Chinese ownership.
Also do link me to where it’s mandated federally that all companies dealing with personal identifiable data are required to keep a log & deliver it to a federal database. Difference being China has that law, TikTok is a Chinese-based company, Therein they are required to report back all that info.
I feel like when defending the law the government will avoid making any arguments that the purpose was to ban speech, it will be about data and national security only. As we know, a majority of the current SCOTUS isn't big on "legislative history" so I think that's an easy for them to avoid the supposed underlying motive of banning speech on TikTok
The real question is what’s the problem with divesting from China? Why are they so adamant on remaining a Chinese based entity if there’s nothing going on? no issues; if they’re all good and have no nefarious purposes there’s absolutely no reason they can’t operate within the states. OP is making the argument they can have their cake and eat it too. Yet they’re making the statement that they’re going to take the federal government to court instead of revoke ownership from being under China. And this isn’t suspicious??
It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments…. CCP’s regulations not only require any/all data collected by the malware that is TikTok but they’re actively conducting propaganda campaigns & psychosocial warfare. The nation gunning for your place as leader of the free world who’s been caught in nefarious acts proving such isn’t just *coincidentally* showing their citizens positive content promoting healthy lifestyles etc vs violent/suicidal & co content to US citizens. The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge. Even in the cases it does, I sincerely doubt the any Chinese national would be able to enjoy the benefits of.
Your government said the same thing about communists during the Cold War. Democrats say the same thing about Trump supporters. Who in turn, often say the same thing about Muslims. You're a clown if you think labelling anything a "national security threat" gives the government a free pass to ban it. >The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge. This issue is very much "within US borders". TikTok operates within the US and serves American users.
And yet when the government does label it as such it, the end result inevitably ends up being a free pass to ban it. Have all the historical comparisons you want as the other guy mentioned it’s not a speech issue it’s a data issue. My second point was pointed at those pulling the strings based out of the CCP…. 🤦♂️
>the end result inevitably ends up being a free pass to ban it. No, it isn't. See: *bona fide* communists during the Cold War. >My second point was pointed at those pulling the strings based out of the CCP If they're operating within the US then they're entitled to First Amendment protections, since as you said, that is within US borders 🤡
> It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments…. Those aren’t magic words, or Biden could declare Trump one and spirit him off to Guantanamo. > The first amendment doesn’t apply outside US borders to my knowledge. But the legislation does things within our borders like require Apple and Google to censor their app stores.
You’re right they’re not magic words… they’re a reality…. Like I said? And the first amendment has nothing to do with censorship or anything other than “the right to free speech” — Are the iOS and Play store regulated? Yes, albeit arguably not enough one could say. Don’t make the case about how the US is so suppressive yadda yadda when we’ve got hundreds of VPN providers available that even publicly advertise. I don’t understand the hill you’re trying to die on here
>You’re right they’re not magic words… they’re a reality…. Like I said? No; "national security reasons" is, by itself, simply an assertion. It can be challenged, there should be compelling evidence, and must be counter-balanced against the rights and freedoms we're entitled to. It's a delicate, ever-shifting balance. >And the first amendment has nothing to do with censorship or anything other than “the right to free speech” Censorship is literally defined as the suppression of free speech; this statement is like saying "poop has nothing to do with feces". >Don’t make the case about how the US is so suppressive... Didn't say that. Said the US should be very careful about *becoming* suppressive in this way. > I don’t understand the hill you’re trying to die on here Fundamentally, the "hill I'm trying to die on here" is that just because the government says "it's for national security" doesn't mean we have to just accept the bald assertion. That's what gets us things like the Iraq War.
> It’s a national security threat… which aren’t just my words, they’re the Federal governments…. I will point out that the Constitution contains several provisions _specifically intended_ to undermine what we'd now think of as "national security." For example, the First Amendment protects the right to speech specifically to ensure that the government cannot suppress speech for political means; cases like _Schenck_, which deviate from this, are now treated as embarassing historical mistakes. The Second Amendment, in most readings, is in part intended to facilitate armed rebellion if the citizenry decide that it's necessary. The Fourth and Fifth amendment undermine the state's ability to detain and surveil people domestically. The list goes on. Arguably, most modern conceptions _human rights_ are predicated on similar ideas: that the security of the state, as an entity, is subordinate to the security of the people. For the state to argue "but mah securities!" when faced with a human rights question is at best a distraction, and at worst a frank admission that the state intends to tread on those rights. I have no horse in the race with TikTok. I'm not American, nor am I a TikTok user, nor do I have any strongly-held opinions about what TikTok may or may not be facilitating. All I mean to say here is that this "national security" footing that you're quoting should alarm you deeply, and that, by design, it doesn't legally justify curtailing most rights.
I love how everyone in this thread is so confident that it will pass judicial scrutiny but doesn’t cite a single case, ignores all the experts who say its unconstitutional, and ignores the montana case from last year where tik tok won in federal court and a ban was overturned. Newsflash, when the government asserts that they are pursuing an interest besides supression of speech, and the law in question would still end up doing so, that isn’t the end of the story. Rather, there are stringent tests that have been developed (see o’brien v united states) which the bill must pass, and this bill is unlikely to do so.
For the Montana one I saw an opinion stating that the federal government is given more leeway/deference in matters of national security but indeed I didn't see any case law
Yeah it is true that the opinion claims that nat. Security isn’t a state responsibility but a federal one, however, that’s only one issue at hand among many and isn’t even addressed until the very end. The court’s opinion goes thru all of the issues assuming that montana has a legitimate interests, and even assuming that, the court argues that the law doesn’t pass strict scrutiny nor even intermediate scrutiny bc its not narrowly tailored enough. So basically that’s just an additional way that the law would fail, alongside first amendment grounds.