It seems unfathomable that we’re even here. The First Amendment is one of our clearer constitutional provisions. “Make no law,” it says, “abridging the freedom of speech.” And yet, with the “Protec…
I think a key fact is rather downplayed in the article: the first amendment applies to Americans not non-Americans. While Americans use TikTok, it is owned and run by a non-american entity so it is not afforded the protections of the first amendment.
The district courts ruling was that the government had acted to protect freedom of speech from a foreign adversary by banning TikTok. Essentially arguing that this is not breaching the first amendment as the intention is not to abridge freedom of speech but rather protect it.
I can see both sides of this debate but I think the article is probably right - the intention is probably irrelevant as it is defacto abridging the freedom of speech of the american users who will lose access to the platform.
And as others have said the real solution may have been proper privacy laws in the US that stop all tech companies farming and selling users data. But the US companies don’t want that and neither seemingly does the US government - they seem to not mind US companies abusing their citizens, it’s only when it’s foreign governments that it’s wrong.
I think a key fact is rather downplayed in the article: the first amendment applies to Americans not non-Americans. While Americans use TikTok, it is owned and run by a non-american entity so it is not afforded the protections of the first amendment.
The district courts ruling was that the government had acted to protect freedom of speech from a foreign adversary by banning TikTok. Essentially arguing that this is not breaching the first amendment as the intention is not to abridge freedom of speech but rather protect it.
I can see both sides of this debate but I think the article is probably right - the intention is probably irrelevant as it is defacto abridging the freedom of speech of the american users who will lose access to the platform.
And as others have said the real solution may have been proper privacy laws in the US that stop all tech companies farming and selling users data. But the US companies don’t want that and neither seemingly does the US government - they seem to not mind US companies abusing their citizens, it’s only when it’s foreign governments that it’s wrong.
What? Where does the First Amendment say that or where has a court interpreted it that way before?