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?
Agreed. It's like the banning of the "Joe Camel" cartoon character or the across-the-board canceling of Alex Jones in a single day.
You were asked to provide a specific citation in the law that says this and as far as I know you didn’t.
Where is anything like that mentioned?
And I told you then it was the RULING that allows them to make another law that does that. So the fact that you asked the exact same question again shows you didn’t pay attention. Which we already knew because anybody paying attention was against this law from day 1.
“Did Jim/John R. move?”
No... But the Free Republic did. It is no longer self served as allowed to be perpetuated. It is now 3rd party hosted through Texas in the cloud and the Linode/Akamai Technologies DNS servers are in the EU.
I have no clue why there is a lack of transparency about this... It was a logical upgrade for many modern reasons.
https://www.wmtips.com/tools/ip/45.79.56.181#geo
“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.”
Hey it doesn’t bother me that if a foreign enemy country wants to collect as much data about its users and possibly use it to destroy their privacy and financial so be it. When, not if, that happens don’t expect folks that didn’t engage in that sham come to your rescue.
I was shocked to see no Supreme Court dissent.
I’m still banned on Twitter/X.
For over five years now.
Despite three appeals.
You’re preaching to the converted here.
It’s not a shocker.
Deep State controls the SCOTUS.
We’ll see if anything changes with regard to that after Trump is sworn in.
I am and have never been against banning it. China doesn’t need Tiktok when they have crooked US politicians who will do anything for money.
“If they can ban an app, then they can ban a forum.”
It is everything, this alone proves this bill is not just about TikTok:
(2) COVERED COMPANY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered company” means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text
FR isn’t a Chinese app, true. But you’d be ok with Congress banning all Chinese apps? WeChat? China Daily? Or how about data about data-gathering apps from England, Vietnam, etc? Unless Congress wants to declare war, it ought not be allowed to bar Americans from accessing foreign apps.
With so many that were on TikTok and went to RedNote the feds a the least of my concerns.
(Mao)
Xiaohongshu, which Chinese media is referring to as “RedNote”
“I am and have never been against banning it. China doesn’t need Tiktok when they have crooked US politicians who will do anything for money.”
Yep, like we talked about yesterday. We could ban the whole internet and they will still get the info they want from us. This bill is absolutely useless and unnecessary.
Yes I heard about it
The law is an ass
I know you think it’s good intentioned Fury but believe me this thing will be misused if still on the books at some point
Thought we learned our lesson on this and FISA>
I was paying attention. We’ll just disagree on this.
But it’s okay. Both our viewpoints are earnestly held.
“but believe me this thing will be misused if still on the books at some point”
Yes, it is just as safe as “Shall not be infringed”.
I agree with your comment regarding the fate of those engaging in a TikTok sham.
It would be more difficult because FR isn’t completely ‘open.’ It does not advertise and it is solely controlled by the owner.
To the overall point of the First Amendment...
The First Amendment is a right OF THE PEOPLE endowed by our Creator. Generally, it would apply to We the People (American citizens), but also the 14th amendment "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction [of the United States] the equal protection of the laws." This means that it also applies to non-citizens who are present in the United States, subject to other laws regarding incitement or support of terrorism.
Tik Tok is not a person, it is a corporate entity of China. As such, it does not have 1st amendment rights. Banning Tik Tok does not violate the non-existent 1st amendment rights of the Chinese corporate owners of Tik Tok inside of China.
Regarding abridgment of the rights of the people to free speech, banning Tik Tok does not do this. The people are still free to speak. This would be the same as arguing that our right to free speech is abridged if Free Republic were to shut down for some reason. We are still free to speak, we just have to go somewhere else to do it. Just as we cannot force an entity to remain available in the name of free speech, we cannot claim that a loss of an entity is an abridgement of our right to free speech.
Furthermore...
All the rights of individuals in the first amendment should be taken together as different sides of the same concept:
Finally, here are some thoughts by Benjamin Franklin on "the court of the press" from a 1789 essay An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz. The Court of the Press.
What's interesting in Franklin's piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion. The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established? In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types? This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.
Just as Franklin suggested, today's "one citizen in 500" class of Tik Tok (or Twitter or YouTube or Free Republic or DU...) users regularly engage in what Franklin called "the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure." In other words, not everyone had access to the "pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of... balls" to advantage themselves of the 1st amendment's right to a free press. It would be wrong to suggest that the other 499 were "infringed" by their lack of access to the same.
And the lack of access to Tik Tok would be a similar case. The banning of Tik Tok would not abridge the people's access to a free press.
-PJ
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.