• kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    First off, it doesn’t matter what China is doing. Just because they are doing it, doesn’t mean it’s a justifiable infringement on American citizens. The dynamic between the American citizen and their government is what we consider when determining legality of a law.

    Second, removing a platform that people want to communicate on does infringe on speech. You have a right to associate with whoever you want - by the government banning that platform they are telling you who you can and can’t communicate with. Please read previous comment on freedom of association. This is a well established concept with courts ruling this again and again.

    The government is arguing that they are justified in this infringement on speech because of national security interests. It is unequivocally an infringement on freedom of speech. It’s just the government is claiming that the pros outweigh the cons.

    Sort of like when we infringe on free speech so people can’t yell fire in a movie theater.

    Judge Molloy also analyzed the second prong: narrow tailoring. He declared that the state failed to demonstrate that it was not burdening more speech than was necessary to achieve its ends.

    … the court found that SB 419 was not narrowly tailored, because Montana had failed to show that the ban would alleviate the harms it sought to address. Molloy determined that, even if SB 419 passed, China would be able to access data on Montanans

    There’s an entire legal distinction here between “content-neutral” speech suppression and “content-based”. The federal government’s official stated reason is a “content-neutral” one: China is able to collect data on Americans and this harms national security.

    They are not claiming China can influence Americans. Why do you think? Because that would be a “content-based” infringement and therefore subject to a higher level of scrutiny - one that the government likely cannot pass.

    Therefore, just like the Montana bill to ban TikTok, the government will have to show that banning TikTok will fix the harm that it’s claiming to address. The law was struck down in Montana because of that reason - banning TikTok does not actually prevent China from collecting data. Anybody can buy data on Americans from many different sources. It’s not a hard thing to do and China could likely do it for a cheaper price than running TikTok.

    I believe that the real reason that they are banning TikTok is a “content-based” justification. They don’t want China to influence Americans. They want to have influence and control over the content on TikTok.

    This is unconstitutional and deceptive. I hope the USC truly does have political independence and strikes this down. Otherwise this is just another notch on the spiral to authoritarianism. We are becoming China.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You should read this https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/tiktok-bill-foreign-influence/677806/

      Again, this is not a new concept. The Montana ban was stopped but even in that case, AFAIK the appeal isn’t settled. This was also not something heard by the Montana supreme court or the US supreme court.

      The national ban has also presumably been crafted by much more experienced lawyers and lawmakers than the Montana ban. Presumably folks that understand the law better than either of us.

      IMO comparing a TikTok ban to some major infringement even remotely close to an authoritarian country … it’s just wrong. Freedom of association has its limits and always has. Associating with a hostile foreign power, for instance the confederate states, was not ever to my knowledge protected. The only entity that folks are being prevented from associating with here is the Chinese government.

      Calling a TikTok ban an assault on the right of association is like calling Twitter moderation an assault on the right of free speech. There are other options available. Your argument would be much stronger if TikTok was a truly unique technology or platform, but it isn’t. It’s not even an original idea, it’s a ripoff of vine that (originally) added music to the videos, made them a bit longer, and generally suffers from a lot of the same issues in terms of monetization.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The national ban has also presumably been crafted by much more experienced lawyers and lawmakers than the Montana ban. Presumably folks that understand the law better than either of us.

        Unconstitutional laws are deliberately passed all the time. They happen for political reasons. For example, GOP-led state congress from various states repeatedly tried to pass abortion bans even while Roe V Wade was still active. Why? They are not stupid, they knew it would get stricken down by the courts.

        The reason is a) it shows to their base they are trying to do something about abortion. It’s essentially political theater.

        b) by continously challenging the law, you can hope for a court case that potentially sets useful precedence for the future. For example Crawford v. Marion County Election Board in 2008. After passing many voter id laws that got repeatedly struck down, eventually it led to a court case that set a better precedence for voter id laws.

        If you keep trying, eventually you get a nice ruling and all of a sudden the unconstitutional law you passed is a little less unconstitutional. So next time, you can go a little further and keep pushing the boundaries

        So even though we had very strong amendments in the constitution to protect right to vote (15th amendment, 19th amendment, 24th amendment, 26th amendment) by repeatedly challenging those amendments by passing unconstitutional laws, the GOP has effectively managed to bypass the constitution in many states by passing voter id laws that have the simple purpose of getting blacks to vote less

        They infringe upon rights the constitution explicitly gives to the citizens by sheer persistence.

        IMO comparing a TikTok ban to some major infringement even remotely close to an authoritarian country … it’s just wrong

        The reason it’s authoritarian is because the government is playing that game I mentioned above. It’s clear this law has nothing to do with data collection.

        They are using that justification because they don’t have any legal leg to stand on if they named the real reason - they want to ban specific content. Instead, they claim they are content neutral and are doing it for national security.

        So they are deliberately bending the boundaries of the law in order to reduce personal freedoms and give the government more control over the media that shows up on your screen.

        If this isn’t a step towards authoritarianism, I don’t know what is. The DNC is now holding hands with the GOP as they continue to degrade the remainder of legitimacy that American democratic institutions have left while marching towards WW3

        And you and many others in this thread are cheering it on, letting your xenophobia be used as a tool to consolidate power by the federal government

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          If you can’t separate the CCP from the Chinese people, there’s something very wrong with your moral compass.

          It’s right up there with calling someone antisemitic for criticizing Israel.

          I’m done with this conversation. I can’t take you seriously after that xenophobia comment.

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nice deflection. A jingoist with a sense of moral superiority. Yeah, OK.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It does when it’s a foreign power affecting or influencing policy or national security. Which is the problem. They aren’t banning tik tok. They are saying it has to sell itself. There are stipulations on that sale. But in the grand scheme of things the government isn’t going to reach into citizens phones and take tik tok away. The people who have it will still be able to use the app unless the owners of the company themselves decide otherwise and act accordingly. In that case it would be tik tok affecting “free speech”, not the government affecting free speech.

      Even in the event that it is no longer available for download on app stores the government can’t stop you from using a VPN set to the Philippines to download the app. And since that is the case the government is not actively depriving anyone of the platform. They are curtailing the platforms ability to continue to do business in the US which is in their purview especially when in pertains to national security.

      You asked a question to another commenter about how they feel about the government effectively controlling modes of communication and platforms for freedom of speech. You neglect to point out or take into consideration that the government does so all the time when it pertains to public safety and national security.

      I am not a fan of this legislation. I firmly understand that Tik Tok is basically Google with the rails blown off and both platforms and companies are predicated on collection and use of user data in ways that infringe on user privacy. As a result the only reason Google (or Facebook et all) aren’t being forced to sell is because they are American companies so their data is accessible to the government as another way to surveil the general public.

      However I have a question for you. At what point does something become dangerous enough to the end user that the government should step in? Your phone provider? Regulated by the government. You posting terroristic threats on any platform? Regulated by the government. You can’t post that you plan to shoot up a school or send a senator a bomb. Regulations for the purposes of protecting the national security of the country and the general public are already in place for private individuals and businesses.

      At what point should the government not be able to regulate a business?