"In the filing... the group says that the law... 'promises to shutter a discrete medium of communication that has become part of American life, prohibiting Petitioners from creating and disseminating expressive material with their chosen editor and publisher,' the lawsuit says.... One of the creators on the most recent suit is Brian Firebaugh, a rancher in Texas. According to the filing, Firebaugh earns income from the TikTok Creator Fund and from selling products promoted on the app. 'Without access to TikTok, Firebaugh would need to get a different job and pay for daycare instead of raising his son at home,' the lawsuit says. 'If you ban TikTok, you ban my way of life'...."
Here are Firebaugh's TikTok videos. Here's his new video, saying, while running, "I don't do this. I never get political on my account" — then, interrupting himself and singsonging — "I'm suing Biden."
@cattleguy @tiktok creators Stand Up to the Federal Government! TikTok Ban and our 1st Amendment Rights. @Chloe @Talia | Lists & DC Events @Tim @Kiera 🍓 @Loveandpebble @topherTownMusic @Btypep ♬ original sound - Cattle Guy 🐮
Posts
17 comments:
He is careful to make it entertaining. Even a video about a legal filing needs hold viewer attention or be rejected.
I also hope this lawsuit succeeds. The US Govt has no business in controlling what we see. That's the thing that the Chinese Govt is good at.
Going after Tik Tok was self-inflicted wound by the Democrats. Sure Trump wanted to ban it first and there were plenty of Republicans on board for the legislation which will possibly ban it, but now lots of folks are going to blame Democrats and specifically Biden for this. I'm surprised that Democrats, meaning politicians, weren't more aware of the potential blowback from this. While there are folks on both sides upset by this potential ban, it seems like the majority of people upset are on the left. I'm not sure if this is Washington-dwellers being unaware of what people actually care about, or if it is them being used to being able to dictate what folks should be caring about at the moment.
I think I said this on the Cohen TikTok post a few days ago: these people are not all getting paid legitimately. China paid for content at the beginning to get Creators to use TikTok and they're probably still doing it to keep their app usage up.
Years ago The Pioneer Woman created her empire much the same way. She started her blog, but then to drive traffic, she gave away $500 gift cards to random commenters. Now she has a kitchen line at Walmart. But her brand was carefully cultivated. TikTok is the same.
I agree that a content-neutral regulation of phone apps is the best way to go, but malign foreign interest is one legitimate basis of such regulation.
The interesting point is that I just watched CattleGuy's video through my web browser.
Even if the TikTok app is banned, will TikTok also be banned from posting content on the web?
In other words, is the TikTok application and the data algorithms behind it the essence of TikTok, and is the TikTok app-algorithm fundamental to free speech?
Publishing platform with PRC government-adjacent... aligned steering. We have Alphabet and YouTube etc. Yahoo!
I am so glad that the US Government is protecting Google and Facebook. The Chinese Government and their proxy Tik Tok is so malicious compared to the US Government and Facebook.
This totally wont be used to shut down X.
Totally wont.
Chris Wray just confirmed the FBI is investigating Trump again.
The US government will use this power only in our best interests of course. It does such a good job of looking out for us and keeping us in line.
prohibiting Petitioners from creating and disseminating expressive material with their chosen editor and publisher... would need to get a different job and pay for daycare instead of raising his son at home... ban my way of life...."
Funny, but I don't see anywhere in the First Amendment a right to a "chosen editor and publisher," a right to a job that one can work from home, or a right to a particular "way of life."
Good. What business does the Congress have in forcing a company out of business, for no reason other than they think the content is "Too Pro palestinian". Mittens in his talk with blinken said that was the reason for their action. Had nothing to do with "ChiComs".
prohibiting Petitioners from creating and disseminating expressive material with their chosen editor and publisher,'...
Isn't it the entire point of free speech that you can say what you want but the government doesn't owe you a typewriter or printing press?
Isn't that what liberals where screaming when conservatives were worried about getting censored on Twitter; get your own damned social media platform?
Blogger tommyesq said...
Funny, but I don't see anywhere in the First Amendment a right to a "chosen editor and publisher," a right to a job that one can work from home, or a right to a particular "way of life."
I don't know what the specific law is around this stuff but I'm wondering if they are trying to set up rationales on specific broad types of protections the court could rule on in this matter that would ensure a broad and identifiable rule for first amendment protections. Tik Tok acts as a publisher by hosting and allowing others to view the content created by others on its platform. It also acts as an editor when its algorithm selects certain pieces to be recommended to its users. Similarly it seems they are hoping the court will issue a rule that grants protections to editors and publishers but also to other creators being able to choose an editor and publisher. I'm guessing the stuff about not being able to work from home and having their way of life altered is about talking about damages and the kind they hope would justify some sort of restraining order against the government enforcing the law.
Isn't it the entire point of free speech that you can say what you want but the government doesn't owe you a typewriter or printing press?
The government doesn't owe you a typewriter but that doesn't necessarily mean it can ban typewriters or a particular company's typewriters.
So often people are insisting some action is a different action. Congress said china needs to sell its share of tiktok. It does not close or censor tiktok.
'The government doesn't owe you a typewriter but that doesn't necessarily mean it can ban typewriters or a particular company's typewriters.'
I get your point, but there is more to it when a political adversary owns the typewriter...
The government doesn't owe you a typewriter but that doesn't necessarily mean it can ban typewriters or a particular company's typewriters.
So long as the ban of a particular type of typewriter is based on (a) some legitimate exercise of federal power (which these days seems to be entirely limitless), and (b) is viewpoint-neutral, government can ban typewriters or a particular brand of typewriter. Whether that is a good thing or not is a somewhat different question, but given those caveats, it is permissible. I am not even sure this would get strict scrutiny review at the Supreme Court.
The Vault Dweller said...
Tik Tok acts as a publisher by hosting and allowing others to view the content created by others on its platform. It also acts as an editor when its algorithm selects certain pieces to be recommended to its users.
In this particular sentence you can substitute any of the following for Tik Tok:
facebook
Youtube
Google- news or ads
Truth Social
Gab
Myspace (yes, it still exists...)
Wimkin
Amazon (it censors reviews and directs you to stuff via algorithms)
Twitter (X, of whatever you want to call it)
And that list is far from comprehensive.
The question that really exists for some of thee platforms- are they a publisher or a common carrier? For Facebook and Twitter- and like platforms- they're much closer to common carriers. With an unlimited number of people on any particular party line. I don't know about Twitter, but the groups that form within Facebook- the party lines so to say- are much more like publishers - Or - private member organizations. If you're in the dog fancier group and continually talk about cats- they're going to throw you out. If you're in the Meme Control Bureau (I am) and you complain to the Facebook fascists that a meme offends you- you're going to be thrown out. The whole point of most memes is to offend someone.
And the government, by directing private companies to censor violated the first amendment bigtime. Hunter Biden's laptop that was Hunter Biden's laptop couldn't be referred to as Hunter Biden's laptop on Facebook or Twitter because the government put down it's heavy hand- backed up by 50 former intelligence professionals committing perjury- So to tell the the actual truth that Hunter Biden's laptop was Hunter Biden's laptop and wasn't really Russian misinformation was forbidden in the most widely used social media. It was Hunter Biden's laptop. Full of photo evidence of all kinds of crimes and drug use by none other than- Hunter Biden. And a significant number of people that believed the official government propaganda- read lie- that the laptop was Russian misinformation- freely and willfully parroted by MSM- would have voted differently if they had known the truth. Those of us who suffered time in Facebook jail are well aware of the censorship regime. The DEMOCRAT led censorship regime.
Users have no standing to sue. The law requires divestment from China if it continues
No court can stop China from shutting down Tik Tok in the US.
It would be like suing the government for raising the minimum wage because it affects a business you patronize.
Publicity stunts by publicity whores.
Post a Comment