12-19-2024, 01:40 PM
This post was last modified 12-19-2024, 02:03 PM by Maxmars. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: added link
And now that Trump has a true friend incoming to the FCC, and having telegraphed a rumor that he would act against this potential ban... we have this development in the story...
From ArsTechnica: Supreme Court to decide if TikTok should be banned or sold
Subtitled: TikTok won’t get injunction but will get SCOTUS review ahead of potential ban.
Background DI discussions:
Tik Tok
Recent legislation "banning" Tik Tok might not survive
Tik Tok sues US Govt... the saga continues
Donald Trump to stop the TikTok ban
Tik Tok's lawyers had applied for an injunction, hoping to put an end to the forced-sale deadline they had been subjected to.
But instead, the Supreme Court will simply review the legislation for unconstitutionality... so the deadline still stands.
There was a great political posturing in place about protecting the lion-share of Tik Tok users in the US, those of our younger generations; who naturally were involved in the explorations of fads and trends and all such things online.
The offended few, and the perpetually fearful within the government, reacted in theatric form... Senators, and Congressional members sent an ultimatum in the form U.S. Legislation (H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act)
But they made a very obtuse and , in my opinion, telling inclusion in the legislation... the specific mention of Tik Tok... creating a clear constitutional hazard... risking the legislation falling into the problematic realm of a "Bill of Attainder." Such a bill imposes penalties, restrictions, or burdens targeted towards a specific person or group... without the legal due process to which everyone is entitled in our country.
My own opinion is that legislation is never to be used as a tool of punishment... and certainly not against a specifically-targeted entity (at least not a citizen, at best no one.)
Legislation should describe the actions of anyone, not specific actors (who come and go over time.)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed it would review whether a federal law that could ban or force a sale of TikTok is unconstitutional.
It seems the question of "could" ban, or force a sale... is tenuous. Can they? Of course they can...
But the "sale" is just a question of "instead of a ban." Tik Tok is a platform, not a monopoly of free speech, the company doesn't "have to stop" doing it's business in the US... it just can't, in substance, be a controlled entity by a self-proclaimed foreign antagonist of the US.
"Framing" is the issue here.
Speaking of framing:
“We’re pleased with today’s Supreme Court order," TikTok said in a statement. "We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights.”
The Tik Tok posture is that this is about 170 million "Americans" rather than the disposition of their content creation and data collection...
We are presuming in their perspective, that all those Tik Tok users will be suddenly stricken mute and deaf... hyperbole of the 'courtroom' variety.
"Defenders" will always slide into the 'victim' role, embracing self-described virtue... 'prosecuting' their plight as if it were an unwarranted attack.
I fear, because of the ham-handed theatrics of politicians... they have been handed an opportunity to prevail...
Perhaps they "had" to make it specific... lest others they do not object to might fall under the same scrutiny... others like Meta, You Tube, X, etc.
Those others do exactly the same with their data... just not "officially" for China.
From ArsTechnica: Supreme Court to decide if TikTok should be banned or sold
Subtitled: TikTok won’t get injunction but will get SCOTUS review ahead of potential ban.
Background DI discussions:
Tik Tok
Recent legislation "banning" Tik Tok might not survive
Tik Tok sues US Govt... the saga continues
Donald Trump to stop the TikTok ban
Tik Tok's lawyers had applied for an injunction, hoping to put an end to the forced-sale deadline they had been subjected to.
But instead, the Supreme Court will simply review the legislation for unconstitutionality... so the deadline still stands.
There was a great political posturing in place about protecting the lion-share of Tik Tok users in the US, those of our younger generations; who naturally were involved in the explorations of fads and trends and all such things online.
The offended few, and the perpetually fearful within the government, reacted in theatric form... Senators, and Congressional members sent an ultimatum in the form U.S. Legislation (H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act)
But they made a very obtuse and , in my opinion, telling inclusion in the legislation... the specific mention of Tik Tok... creating a clear constitutional hazard... risking the legislation falling into the problematic realm of a "Bill of Attainder." Such a bill imposes penalties, restrictions, or burdens targeted towards a specific person or group... without the legal due process to which everyone is entitled in our country.
My own opinion is that legislation is never to be used as a tool of punishment... and certainly not against a specifically-targeted entity (at least not a citizen, at best no one.)
Legislation should describe the actions of anyone, not specific actors (who come and go over time.)
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed it would review whether a federal law that could ban or force a sale of TikTok is unconstitutional.
It seems the question of "could" ban, or force a sale... is tenuous. Can they? Of course they can...
But the "sale" is just a question of "instead of a ban." Tik Tok is a platform, not a monopoly of free speech, the company doesn't "have to stop" doing it's business in the US... it just can't, in substance, be a controlled entity by a self-proclaimed foreign antagonist of the US.
"Framing" is the issue here.
Speaking of framing:
“We’re pleased with today’s Supreme Court order," TikTok said in a statement. "We believe the Court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their free speech rights.”
The Tik Tok posture is that this is about 170 million "Americans" rather than the disposition of their content creation and data collection...
We are presuming in their perspective, that all those Tik Tok users will be suddenly stricken mute and deaf... hyperbole of the 'courtroom' variety.
"Defenders" will always slide into the 'victim' role, embracing self-described virtue... 'prosecuting' their plight as if it were an unwarranted attack.
I fear, because of the ham-handed theatrics of politicians... they have been handed an opportunity to prevail...
Perhaps they "had" to make it specific... lest others they do not object to might fall under the same scrutiny... others like Meta, You Tube, X, etc.
Those others do exactly the same with their data... just not "officially" for China.
