Posted on 01/18/2025 12:52:12 AM PST by RandFan
Dismayed by the amount of support the TikTok Ban is getting and a Unanimous decision by the men and women in black robes further alarms me and will just embolden the Feds and Congress to engage in more online censorship.
How come some (most?) Freepers don't see this? Are you still watching the networks and believing the foreign entity stuff?
You understand that the legislation is broader than that?
Well, I don’t think that way. The “downfall of the CCP” would likely lead to disaster. Warlords around China, many with anti-west inclinations, would suddenly have control of nukes. I thus believe that open people-to-people communication between our two countries is the best way to preserve peace and promote freedom. Banning, for example, WeChat or China Daily would essentially cut such ties.
Moreover, short of declaration of war, I oppose granting Congress the right to assign enemy status to foreign “adversaries,” or “adversary” status to foreign competitors.
It appears that our politicians aim for endless war with China. I guess it helps keep them in power.
no. i don’t buy that about Thomas or Alito. but not knowing their true position, i’ll speculate based on some sort of plausible reason(s) that they went along with this particular vote.
perhaps, apart from his originalist respect for Congress’ as a separate branch, Thomas didn’t vote to strike this law as a single application, because it amounts to a complete ban on a particular and new form of free speech public square run by one actor which doesn’t eliminate or threaten (in his view) all the pre-existing public squares established by the Constitution.
it’s also perhaps not discriminatory to individual citizens since it bans one market place entirely with no individual exceptions.
anyway. we’ll have to see how it develops with Thomas in subsequent cases.
This has been justified by a Red Scare focused on China. Yet there does not appear to be any concern about the “national security” implications of most Americans using and carrying with them iPhones made in China.
We’ll just disagree and now that you’ve made that comment, it seems your done with a civil discussion.
Good luck.
There was nothing uncivil in my comment. The facts are there, tyranny is now allowed, so long as Congress can find a way to blame China.
Fair enough.
We’ll just completely disagree on this issue.
Or Russia.
Or Trump.
Again, a link that shows that the Canadians and China are being allowed to by up ALL the mineral claims on federal lands.
Legally it wouldn't be different than shutting down a US newspaper.
Once again, what about the users who are US Citizens? They have no rights either then? It is they who are the publishers of content on the platform.
As has been suggested, TikTok could sell its US operations and gain the protection of the Bill of Rights that way. But they haven't.
Yep, they went from a San Jose, CA data center physical server to Linode (now Akamai...both are US companies). And the TikTok legislation is specific to who owns the App/site/content. In the case of FR....Jim/John.
“They aren’t the publishers.”
Yes the users are. TikTok is just a public platform/soapbox where users can go post/publish their own personal material. Just like us here...
Did the FR just publish that reply to me? No you did. They only supplied the means to do so. “Post” = Publish. In fact on our forum the post button actually says “Publish”. Same at a lot of platforms.
Look at the bottom of every thread page:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management.
To be the publishers, we would need our own websites, just like we would need our own printing presses if we started a newspaper. Like other publishers, FR prints a disclaimer about opinions and does not claim copyright over what's published. But it's still legally the publisher.
All I am saying is that US publishers are covered by the Bill of Rights. TikTok is not.
The users ARE Publishers... If the users are US citizens they have rights.
“Risks Associated With Publication.
Every time you >publish something online<, whether it’s a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or >even a user comment<, you open yourself up to potential legal liability.”
Media Law:
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication
“Like other publishers, FR prints a disclaimer about opinions and does not claim copyright over what’s published. But it’s still legally the publisher.”
Wrong. That is why there is a disclaimer here... They DO NOT want to be considered as the publisher of the content which makes them liable for it. The users are the true publishers of the content. All they do is provide the public platform so the member users can publish here.
This is a well known industry standard and legal point. As a domain owner myself I am well aware of this reality.
The fact that newspapers/online sites put out a disclaimer that someone's opinion is not theirs or that they hold no copyright on the material is irrelevant to their status as a publisher, only that they should not be held liable for the content of what they are publishing because it's not theirs.
Perhaps this is clearer: FR has many specific restrictions on what can be reproduced here from different news sources. FR clearly does not own that material and FR is not responsible for the post itself.
It is, however, liable for a copyright infringement as a publisher if those rules are not followed and it does not remove the article.
Here’s a map showing Chinese-owned farmland conveniently located near 19 U.S. military bases.
But yes, please tell me more about how banning TikTok is because we have a government deeply committed to protecting our national security. pic.twitter.com/F6VQdN10eA— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) January 19, 2025
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.