The company argues that invoking national security concerns is not a sufficient reason for restricting free speech.
  • tron@midwest.social
    104·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      29·
      6 months ago

      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!

      • Edgarallenpwn@midwest.socialEnglish
        7·
        6 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

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      6 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.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      5·
      6 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.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      It was a unanimous vote (50-0) in the House Commerce Committee, approved independent of other bills. They very likely attached it to the aid package to shield Congress from constituent blowback. They won’t be walking this back.

  • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
    62·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • mattw3496@kbin.social
      28·
      6 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

    • subignition@fedia.io
      12·
      6 months ago

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

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        Although it would be funnier if it went the other direction and corporate personhood was so fundamental that the 14th amendment applied to them meaning they couldn’t be owned by shareholders as that would be slavery.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      12·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Catoblepas
        3·
        6 months ago

        I don’t think the contesting it in court part is what surprised anyone.

    • The Pantser@lemmy.world
      6·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
        9·
        6 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)

      • Rottcodd@kbin.social
        5·
        6 months ago

        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).

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          6·
          6 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.

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      4·
      6 months ago

      Not really, this was always coming. Any time new regulations effect a corporation, they sue. Sometimes it’s just to establish a more reasonable timeframe to make the necessary changes to stay in regulation, sometimes it’s to upturn the entire law. This was pretty much always Step 2. What’s real interesting is TikTok’s refusal to sell, which tells me that they think they have a very solid court case.

    • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      If TikTok winning this means we treat corporations more like people, does that mean we can start charging them with murder and suing them when they infringe on our rights?

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      It’s interesting because technically the content on TikTok is the speech of the users and TikTok is just processing it. It’s not actually their “speech”. Does that mean anything? Are they considered press? Same thing. It’s the content of the users.

  • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
    47·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      15·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • Rusty Shackleford@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      I imagine that our (U.S.) government’s case resides primarily on the premise that the state may exercise the ability to force divestment of a company with foreign ownership.

      These powers are granted by the National Defense Authorization Act which seeks to prevent imminent national and private security vulnerabilities being exploited by foreign adversaries and agents; the actors here would be specifically the CCP and their intelligence and military apparatus’ shell companies and PMCs.

      The precedents set by U.S. Anti-Trust laws support their position, but the primary argument in the state’s defense are the powers granted by the NDAA.

      I’m only speculating.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    40·
    6 months ago

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

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      28·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          7·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 months ago

            Look, Tiktok has the backing of a corporation worth $225 billion. Not my problem.

            I’ve donated to the EFF. Why don’t we talk more about them? The two main people complaining about the Tiktok ban are “Influences” and dopamine addicts.

            • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
              4·
              6 months ago

              Hi, I don’t use TikTok, I don’t really give a shit about that particular platform. I do, however, give a shit about the fact that this one platform is being targeted with some “think of the children” rhetoric while American companies get away with the same things (manipulation regarding current events, political propaganda, appeasing the almighty advertisers) without anyone batting an eye.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 months ago

            I was trying to be impartial. You can consider all propaganda to be a form of advertisement and all advertisement to be a form of propaganda. The same academic study goes into both.

      • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
        6·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          8·
          6 months ago

          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!

          • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
            1·
            6 months ago

            Sure, pre “trickle down” Canada crown corporations: Passenger Trains, now private(Via Rail) Oil: Imperial Oil, now Enbridge(and its insane russian doll network of shell companies) and Petro-Canada ISPs: BCTel+AlbertaTel: Telus, Ontario and Quebec: Bell Even just that subset would drastically change Canada for the absolute better.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      9·
      6 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.

  • SoupBrick@pawb.social
    23·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
    16·
    6 months ago

    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.