Donald Trump to stop the TikTok ban

[pianopraze]

Donald Trump is reportedly expected to stop the TikTok ban

Twitter

not confirmed as of yet.

Can he even do this?

[Maxmars]

Twitter

not confirmed as of yet.

Can he even do this?

Just a plug before I go...

https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Recent-...ot-survive

This legislation appeared to be crafted for show.  It was not properly crafted to account for obvious deficits in the wording.
As usual, virtue signaling by politicians made it necessary to identify "a bad guy" to "vilify and punish"... by including that in the legislation it became a "targeted" matter...

I am kind of suspicious that this was political 'public relations'... rather than an effort to 'protect the people.'

Legislation is not supposed to be a weapon against an entity, business, or specific person... but instead a provision against behaviors which are deemed unacceptable threats against our social order.

[pianopraze]

Just a plug before I go...

https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Recent-...ot-survive

This legislation appeared to be crafted for show.  It was not properly crafted to account for obvious deficits in the wording.
As usual, virtue signaling by politicians made it necessary to identify "a bad guy" to "vilify and punish"... by including that in the legislation it became a "targeted" matter...

I am kind of suspicious that this was political 'public relations'... rather than an effort to 'protect the people.'

Legislation is not supposed to be a weapon against an entity, business, or specific person... but instead a provision against behaviors which are deemed unacceptable threats against our social order.

I think even if it gets passed it should be taken to Supreme Court. Doesn’t seem to be Constitutional to me.

[Maxmars]

As it is written, the legislation begs a Constitutional "check."

I would have thought lawyers shouldn't need to "adjudicate" to discern it's weakness, leading me to speculate that it could have been done on purpose.

These lawyers think and conduct themselves as if the Constitution itself was a 'mystical' document.  It fairly clear... until they get their hands on it.

The legislation should have been shored up by focusing on the fact that any entity operating within the market as Tik Tok does, is to be so sanctioned and cut off.

But noooo, they have to include the name "Tik Tok" within the legislation, creating a clear legal hazard... it demonstrates the authors have a form of "personal grief" with the otherwise legal business entity.  It taints everything.

I'm a legal nobody... but I dare think the whole matter was a political show... they don't really care what Tik Tok does... (which opens up a world of new questions.)

[Maxmars]

I think even if it gets passed it should be taken to Supreme Court. Doesn’t seem to be Constitutional to me.

I'm just making a thread to address the Supreme Court's notional involvement in this case...  it seems your apprehension about it's Constitutionality was very appropriate.

Tik-Tok-sues-US-Govt-Supreme-Court-review

[pianopraze]

These lawyers think and conduct themselves as if the Constitution itself was a 'mystical' document.  It fairly clear... until they get their hands on it.

If by mystical document you mean toilet paper with which they wipe their…

I would agree.

[Maxmars]

If by mystical document you mean toilet paper with which they wipe their…

I would agree.

No, not really... unless I miss your meaning...

I value the document... it represents a living hands-on experiment in government.

I meant that, in my opinion, there is nothing in the Constitution, or it's amendments; that rises to the level of sanctity... that it is meant to be changed by rational discourse exchanged in the common dialogue of the nation.  Some cling to it like its a religious document rooted in ancient mysteries... some cling to it so they can exploit what they don't want changed.

I firmly agree with the idea of freedom of speech. 

Tik Tok doesn't speak... it's users do. 
No one is silencing them. 
That is the "virtue" ploy upon which the media seems to be focusing.

The discussion is about getting hot and bothered about the "speech" angle... and it is in fact a 'shadow' of the problem.  They should have focused on the "What's this crap... the embodiment in the constitution of our nation which singles out "Tik Tok?" - that's not the purpose of constitutional amendments.

But the world of our politicians appears filled with center ring antics... and they are all too happy to play their role.

It isn't Tik Tok itself that's the problem, it the data capture and disposition it provides for China. 

The problem is the use of the data... not who happens to be the agency doing it.

It's a problem of foundation... if what Tik Tok does rises to the level of constitutional amendments...how do we justify that ALL "service providers" (many of them ours) within the industry doing the exact same thing... for someone else (we can only guess who.)

Anyway, if I gave the impression that I approach the Constitution will an air of dismissal, I apologize for misrepresenting myself.  I was trying to mock the lack of thought that went into this act... (or perhaps it was intentionally crafted to fail on scrutiny... who knows?)

[pianopraze]

No, not really... unless I miss your meaning...

I value the document... it represents a living hands-on experiment in government.

I meant that, in my opinion, there is nothing in the Constitution, or it's amendments; that rises to the level of sanctity... that it is meant to be changed by rational discourse exchanged in the common dialogue of the nation.  Some cling to it like its a religious document rooted in ancient mysteries... some cling to it so they can exploit what they don't want changed.

I firmly agree with the idea of freedom of speech. 

Tik Tok doesn't speak... it's users do. 
No one is silencing them. 
That is the "virtue" ploy upon which the media seems to be focusing.

The discussion is about getting hot and bothered about the "speech" angle... and it is in fact a 'shadow' of the problem.  They should have focused on the "What's this crap... the embodiment in the constitution of our nation which singles out "Tik Tok?" - that's not the purpose of constitutional amendments.

But the world of our politicians appears filled with center ring antics... and they are all too happy to play their role.

It isn't Tik Tok itself that's the problem, it the data capture and disposition it provides for China. 

The problem is the use of the data... not who happens to be the agency doing it.

It's a problem of foundation... if what Tik Tok does rises to the level of constitutional amendments...how do we justify that ALL "service providers" (many of them ours) within the industry doing the exact same thing... for someone else (we can only guess who.)

Anyway, if I gave the impression that I approach the Constitution will an air of dismissal, I apologize for misrepresenting myself.  I was trying to mock the lack of thought that went into this act... (or perhaps it was intentionally crafted to fail on scrutiny... who knows?)

The Constitution is not mystical but its ideals are extremely well founded, reasoned, and applicable today.

They are the ultimate check upon the corruption and encroachment of tyrannical, self serving politicians. That and the will of the people to protect those ideals - our current generations failure, to our detriment, is measurable evident.