• hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The only freedom restricted in the law is that of Bytedance to own a social media platform in the US. I find it difficult to define that freedom as “speech”. Citizens’ United dealt with a company’s freedom to fund political campaigns — which is at least easier to define as “speech”.

    • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      … the reasoning why they’re taking away that freedom is the important part you’re purposely ignoring.

      You can handwave away any right the same way you’re doing by ignoring how this is government singling out a company for a behavior based on perceived political messaging

      • hamsterkill@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s not perceived political messaging that’s at issue, but the potential for sensitive national security data collection by an adversary. That’s what made TikTok an explicit target of the law.

        For the record, I don’t have a strong opinion either way on whether the law is good or bad (if you think it’s bad, vote against your congresspeople that supported it). I just don’t see TikTok’s legal argument against it as very strong, constitutionally speaking.