Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban in unanimous ruling
Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law, it's unclear whether third-party internet service providers will support the app.
您正在查看单个对话串。
Unanimous?! Makes you wonder what they know that we might not.
Nothing to do with the data collection, the court was ruling on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act's constitutionality.
They absolutely made data collection part of their opinion.
I think it's more there is a precedence of the government blocking software they think is a threat - https://cmmcinfo.org/list-of-hardware-software-and-services-banned-by-us-government/
We give the government a lot of leeway when it comes to "national security"
Also, we're not the first country to ban it - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/heres-what-happened-when-india-banned-tiktok
Ah yes boldly following in the liberatory footsteps of India.
Wasn't claiming it was a good or bad call, just that the Supreme Court is about legality and there is history of the US banning software and a global history of banning this specific app.
There's a history of the US putting people in prison too. It's still unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring someone to go to prison just because the law they passed named them.
Imagine believing these wacky old farts know anything at all about the internet.
Most of them[1] know a whole lot more about constitutional law than the average lemming.
When things are working correctly, the Supreme Court's role is usually not very concerned with the facts of the case; its role is to resolve questions of law. Congress considered the facts including some classified briefings, decided that American app stores should be forbidden from distributing TikTok to American users, and made a law. The court was asked whether Congress has the authority to make laws like that, and the court decided that it does.
[1] Maybe not Clarence Thomas
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That's the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
This is correct, but the law doesn't do that. It mentions TikTok in the title, but the text describes what is banned in terms of user count and control by a foreign adversary. It would apply to a future product made by a Russian company, for example.
No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.
Foreign adversary controlled application.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok; ...
If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.
I missed that part. Thanks for the correction.
Looking at the court's opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it's unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that's a question for people who know more about law than I do.
A forced sale below market value is absolutely punishment. And being banned is 100% punitive.
Nothing. The arguments were public. They obliterated the first amendment rights of 170 million Americans because the government said National Security. If the government can use magic words to make your rights disappear, then you don't have those rights.
