The court acted just a day after TikTok filed its appeal and will hear oral arguments on Jan. 10 before issuing a decision on whether to put the law on hold. At issue is a bipartisan measure passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden that would go into effect on Jan. 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. The law, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, would require TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the platform to an American company or face a ban. TikTok has challenged the law, saying it violates its free speech rights under the First Amendment....
By the way, Trump talked about TikTok at his press conference on Monday. Asked "How do you plan to stop the ban on TikTok next month?," he said:
We'll take a look at TikTok. I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points. And there are those that say that TikTok has something to do with that. Now, Joe Rogan did and some of the other people that were recommended by my son Barron.... But TikTok had an impact. And so we're taking a look at it. But we won youth. Republicans are always 30 points down in youth. I don't know why. But we ended up finishing. There was one poll that showed us down about 30. We were 35 or 36 points up with young people. So I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart, I'll be honest.
Governmental decisions should not be based on the President's warm spots, but there he is, wearing bias proudly.
ADDED: Here is the application TikTok filed.
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
Facebook, Google, and Microsoft don't want foreign competition is all.
This will be used to take out X at some point and it will be Romney/Cheney "Republicans" that lead the charge.
I’m in favor of forcing the TikTok sale but it is t unfair for Trump to note that this platform allows him to speak to youth and now the establishment wants it shuttered.
It can't be unconstitutional to close down an adversary's propaganda channel. can they show that? Maybe. For instance, the version of tiktok in China is different than the tiktok they export--the export version is much more negative and disruptive.
Of course, our boy was way off with the stats. He didn't win the youth vote by 34 points, he lost it by 6. But, he saw a 10 point jump in his share, (36% to 46%).
Really curious why SCOTUS would take this case. It is open and shut, no real controversial or grey area issues. The Appeals Court decision was unanimous.
There is a difference between opposing China buying up America's farmland, purchasing influence at our universities, or colluding with Fauci and Gates to conduct gain of function research. Achilles is right above. The US Gov't is really going to ban Generation Z's main social median platform? Such bullshit.
Can't the gov't ban NBC news instead?
Trump’s saying the ChiComs helped him win the youth vote.
They don't want Trump talking to the youth. Or Elon. They want public school and university indoctrination. Any open communication channels outside their control can not be tolerated.
Such bullshit. No he's not. Give Trump credit for figuring out how to reach Generation Z.
TikTok is just the current hot thing. There will be a different hot thing next year whether the govt shuts it down or not.
When something doesn't go the way progressive like it isn't always because Foreign Bastards pulled a fast one on stupid Americans.
Banning it for all Americans is easier to enforce than banning it just for government workers that might also be accessing classified information.
"Really curious why SCOTUS would take this case. It is open and shut, no real controversial or grey area issues. The Appeals Court decision was unanimous."
It's called freedom of speech. Some of us still care, and some who care are on the Supreme Court.
What about the -- thousands? -- of Americans who make a living on TikTok? Can the government ruin their income? I doubt they have standing to sue, because to a layman like I am no one ever seems to have standing. Hell, yes, argue for their right to expression.
Trump, who touts his accomplishments a lot, eventually touches on an issue. The Old Guys in Congress aren't representing the younger generation with this law.
Well, they certainly retained a powerhouse set of lawyers/law firms. Getting a result like this will be big feather in their caps even if the client ultimately loses.
The Old Guys know what they've done and what they told to Deep State to do and how they've interfered with or ended umpteen foreign governments over the last century. See Argentina. See Cuba. See Ukraine. ...
Is TikTok worse than a Zuckerberg site? Hmmm? Oligarchs love power.
Does a foreign government have 1st Amendment free speech rights?
IDK which way this cuts as pertains to this question, but what is currently happening in the Romanian election is troubling. As I understand it their courts, apparently at the behest of the EU and our State Dept, have just nullified the election because they didn't like who won. And their excuse is Tik Tok influenced the voters.
More specifically, they claim Russia influenced the election using Tik Tok (sound familiar?).
Bill of Attainder much?
I like free speech, but I have reservations about allowing a foreign entity like China be able to abuse tiktok. They forced users to click a start up screen that auto-emailed members of congress for example. I also think we need to show China that if they want to kick out Facebook and Twitter, well, reciprocation is a bitch. This is what I think free speech argument misses: you are sending a message to China about fair trade in software, products, services etc.
Then again, free speech is kind of a cornerstone.
But you can do tiktok stuff on Youtube and Facebook now, too.
This is like banning Nazi printing presses that could feed you Nazi op eds for every 10 pages you print of your own...
I'm not a fan of Tic-Tok. At best I find it a time sink.
But unless there is some way to prove definitely that the use of the platform, willingly, by millions, is an actual security threat we should stay miles away from the shutdown for the general population.
Yeah, the first amendment is still just a weeeeee bit necessary.
If the First Amendment can really be flattened due to foreign interests owning a share, why can't that be applied to Carlos Slim and the rest of the New York media? They'd better hope the Trump DOJ wins this case for TikTok, because President Trump would love an excuse to force all his enemies to sell off their media properties at fire sale prices. I'm surprised OAN hasn't bought up the corpse of MSNBC yet. But tomorrow is a new year.
"If the First Amendment can really be flattened due to foreign interests owning a share, why can't that be applied to Carlos Slim and the rest of the New York media?"
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Seems to me foreign interests owning our media is ill advised.
It's a little more complex than "because they didn't like who won".
The 'winning' candidate in Romania was in first place for the run-off with 23% of the vote, when they canceled the runoff and rescheduled the first-round election. The Supreme Court canceled the runoff because of a massive TikTok campaign for him that did not include the required "Paid for by the Georgescu for president campaign" and because he spent over a million Euros received from a foreign source (apparently Russia) while declaring that he spent nothing. Would either of those be legal in the US?
TikTok’s parent company received massive amount of VC funding including from Susquehanna, whose founder is a major Trump donor. And ByteDance has a lucrative cloud deal with Oracle. Larry Ellison is another major Trump donor and close friend of Elon Musk.
Trump won’t ban TikTok because of his donors.
"Would either of those be legal in the US?"
Thanks for the additional information. As to your question, the Dems have been collecting illegal foreign contributions since at least Clinton and it's considered SOP. I will be watching with interest to see if the candidate the West doesn't support is allowed to run again or if instead he ends up in jail.
Of course, IANAL, but I don't see how this law passes constitutional muster. A narrowed law that restricts the bad things TikTok is doing may be a better idea. Parent could help, by not giving smart phones to 10 year-olds, but I don't think we can force that, either.
where can I find data and reasons for this bi-partisan? venture into media
?oppression?
What, exactly, is TikTok feeding to the government? How does that present credible a security risk to the US?
A bigger threat is other social media platforms feeding information (sic) to our own government.
It’s an interesting issue. Two free pee h rights here. Those of the users. And those of the company. I don’t see how the users free speech rights are at issue. It doesn’t matter who owns the platform from users perspective. As to the owners, what are the free speech rights of foreign owned corporations? Are they the same as US owned corporations and foreign individuals legally present in the US? I see this as a foreign commerce issue. The federal government can regulate foreign ownership of starting in the US. The free speech issue doesn’t affect that any more than if the Chinese owned Remington and sold guns here.
Remember, this is software on your phone.
So, its not just "a megaphone" or a "printing press"
It also has access to your phone. This is why its tricky.
how are the owners !speech-acting! via TikTok
Good points throughout, Harun. It’s not the talk; it’s the tick.
How does all the craziness on American TikTok affect the Chinese intelligence officers who are supposed to be monitoring it to get our personal information? Do they have to undergo re-indoctrination if they suffer from over-exposure?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा