this post was submitted on 07 May 2024

263 points (100.0% liked)

News

27787 readers

4592 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

263

TikTok sues U.S. government, says ban violates First Amendment (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 105 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

I think it's pretty clear the ban will be overturned. Congress just attached it to Ukraine aid because it was popular enough and they could ram Ukraine and Israel aid thru. The Supreme Court ruled in 1965 that Chinese propaganda is protected speech 8-0, in the middle of the red scare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

If they want to truly go after tiktok we're gonna need data privacy bills and oversight that affects ALL social media platforms. Congress isn't serious about fixing issues. This isn't a serious ban. They just want sound bytes to play back home.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 10 months ago

You're mostly right, but I do not trust this court to consider precedent, or even the law

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they want to truly go after tiktok we’re gonna need data privacy bills and oversight that affects ALL social media platforms.

You mean like the GDPR? Oh the US can absolutely not have that. Big Brother will have a fit!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

For about 2 hours I thought the TikTok ban would bring a similar thing to GDPR to the US. Then I stopped, thought about it and realized it was bullshit. I just want digital rights

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The speech is protected, but foreign influence is not.

The US has a very long history of preventing and restricting foreign control of national media. That said, this has traditionally been applied to television and radio, not new media.

The thought being, people can say whatever they want, but if a foreign adversary has control over the flow of key information channels, that is a national security risk.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lamont v Postmaster General was decided the way it was because it required Dr. Lamont to make a positive and OFFICIAL act in order to receive something through a U.S. Government service.

"We conclude that the Act as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. "

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act requires no official (meaning related to Government) act on the part of the user. A secondary, but still important, consideration for SCOTUS in that case was that the U.S. Mail was an official Government body, that also doesn't apply.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act may still be struck down but Lamont v Postmaster General is IMO a poor case to use for comparison.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

We'll see what happens. I don't think the ban has anything to do with Chinese propaganda and everything to do with the US government wanting a backdoor to read everyone's private communications. Maybe they'll force this into a FISA court under the guise of "national security" in order to get a win after a secret trial.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 67 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Huh. Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but the basic premise seems solid. US has that whole 'corporations are people' shtick going on, and... well, guess now it's time for that ruling to become inconvenient for the government.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago

Exactly. I don't care about tiktok (I'm more concerned with the parts of this legislation) but this'll be interesting. The bad news is that if tiktok wins this, other corporations will definitely start up with some new shenanigans

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It won't happen, but imagine how satisfying it would be if TikTok was the domino that led to Citizens United being overturned

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I don't know if I would say "interesting turn of events" per se. This was entirely expected, to the point where every major news outlet was reporting on the day the ban was announced that TikTok was likely to contest it in court.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But freedom of speech is an US right, how does banning a Chinese company even if they are a person violate free speech? They would be a Chinese citizen with the rights given in their country so no free speech. Just don't get the play they are trying to make here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

They are legally based in the Caymans, if rights don't apply to them because of it then that applies to all the multinational companies (Nestle etc)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

TikTok doesn't engage in speech at all. TikTok is s platform on which people engage in speech. Those people include Americans.

So TikTok being legally considered a person or not, having rights or not and so on is irrelevant, since TikTok's nominal rights aren't being violated in the first place. The rights of the Anerican people are the ones that would be violated - they are the ones whose freedom of speech would be restricted.

IANAL but I presume that's the argument they're using - that when they say that it's a violation of the first amendment, what they mean is not that it violates their supposed freedom of speech, but that it violates our inalienable freedom of speech (as it in fact, and obviously, does).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

I think TikTok has a case here, but I don't think that angle is it. Otherwise, any business blocked by the US due to alleged crimes/embargoes/refusing to meet regulations can claim it is a violation of their right to free speech if they so much as maintain a website, notice board, or wall that Americans can stick flyers onto.

Any legal visitors/businesses/organizations etc. from abroad that enter or work in the United States are still protected by the bill of rights, so TikTok can claim this as a personal infringement despite being incorporated abroad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Corporations are only people when it comes to rights they can abuse.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 47 points 10 months ago (4 children)

There's compelling arguments either way. On one hand, this is a pretty naked attempt to hit at China and control the flow of the US government's desired information.

On the other hand, the legislation isn't technically a ban, but a forced divestment of a corporate asset. The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.

It's an interesting case.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The power of the government to force the breakup, dissolution, or divestment of corporate entities is the basis of US antitrust law, and is well established.

Unless of course the monopoly holder is an american corporation. Then it’s a good monopoly. We’re living in the next gilded age simply because people “forgot” monopolies are bad and those laws remain unused against giants like google, amazon, meta and many many more.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Are you forgetting that there are currently antitrust lawsuits going against both Amazon and Google? The current administration is absolutely in favor of breaking up monopolies, regardless of where the company is.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

And Apple.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

They literally said they want tiktok gone cz they can't control the narrative: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/07/israel-al-jazeera-us-tiktok-ban

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Surely Tiktok will also be suing the Chinese government to be unbanned there as well, right guys?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

We should not throw out our rights, just because China doesn't have those same rights.

China should be the example of a bad way to monitor the internet, not the end goal.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If Tiktok wasn't caught censoring people's posts for various reasons, we could consider it a free speech platform, but as it stands, it's an advertisement platform. We've already lost better forms of speech on the internet. I have no horse in this particular race.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is true for any social platform. They're all advertisement platforms. Where is the line between censorship and moderation? The solution here isn't to draw arbitrary lines in the sand of free speech, it's to promote data transparency laws. Let everyone know what data is kept and how it's used and let them decide where to go and how to put pressure on the platforms they care about for change.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

it's an advertisement platform

Advertisements and CCP propaganda.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

We should also not allow any company that has lied directly to the US public and the government to continue to be a private company.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So basically all big companies, certainly all major social media platforms, have to shut down or be nationalized?

Sounds a bit drastic but ok, I'm with you!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Its just a ploy to avoid any sort of reasonable privacy regulation. Tiktok doesn't do anything that facebook, reddit, instagram, tumbler, twitter etc don't do.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

I'm going to sue the CCP because they banned my psyops platform.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Ya wanna know the best way the US can fight propaganda? Take steps to enact real change in the current quality of life for the middle/lower class here. When people aren't fighting to live, it is easier to overlook the current governmental issues. Not saying that complacency is what people should be fighting for, but it is legitimately the best way for the government to fight foreign adversary's propaganda.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

...because corporations are people? Blegh.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

wouldn't it be funny if tiktok ended up overturning citizens united. infinitesimally small chance of it happening, but it would be fucking hilarious.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Why would it? The US is well able to ban flesh and blood people from the country so the idea that "Corporations are people" fits perfectly well with the ban. In fact it's entirely consistent behavior.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If the CCCP refuses to divest, then thats their choice. The ban only goes into effect if they refuse.

The company hasnt sued the CCCP in China to make it sell its stake, I assume.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide."

I'm shocked I made it to the 3rd Paragraph before I ran into the first set of lies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is the lie that it's not the first time?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Lie 1 - It's not about a "single" platform but any owned and operated by a list of "Adversary" nations.

Lie 2 - It's not permanent. The ban, such as it, can be lifted and the legislation defines how.

Lie 3 - It doesn't bar Americans from participating.

Lie 4 - TikTok is in no way a "Unique Community"

Some of you may question my assertions but before you do I encourage you to read the legislation that was actually enacted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

is this like how Idaho banned transgender athletes in middle schools when they had exactly one transgender girl in middle school sports

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is. It's blatant censorship.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And we know why they are censoring. They don't like that certain politics are being spread.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You mean disinformation. Disinformation is being spread. Everywhere. All of the social media companies need to be policed or banned.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

Nah I'm talking about videos of genocide. They don't want us to see that to the point that they are willing to take these drastic steps.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

The US banning apps is bad precedent period. Think of the damage [Your political nemesis’ party] could do if this was allowed

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why does the US even have to hear a case where China wants to sue them? It seems like something where they should just be like "nah. No thanks".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

China isn't suing the US, TikTok is

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments