undefined | Better HN

0 pointsllamaimperative1y ago0 comments

Oh brilliant. So all we need to curtail someone's speech is assert they are "a foreign adversary hoping to decimate the USA?"

That clarifies things!

What about the speech of "the enemy from within" who is "more dangerous than China, Russia, and all these other countries"?

(And to be clear: I think TikTok is awful and should be banned, but I want much, much clearer arguments than this as to why it is able to be banned under our Constitution)

0 comments

EasyMark1y ago

THen you should go read the SCOTUS final decision, it's pretty succinct for a law document.

llamaimperativeOP1y ago

It’s pretty clear you haven’t read it (or the original law).

It allows US POTUS to force American companies not to serve content that POTUS says is 1) under foreign control and 2) a national security concern.

Note that (1) can be satisfied by POTUS simply saying the company is under the influence of foreign entities.

I.e., there is nothing in the law or the ruling that prevents POTUS from saying “Bluesky is under China’s influence” and banning it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse