• tron@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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.

    • Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

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

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 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.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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.

    • BuelldozerA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 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.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 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.