Comment by ericmay
16 hours ago
The problem with this argument is that you are putting TikTok on a pedestal.
The US (and every country on the planet) has rules and regulations around who can do business in their country and who their citizens may do business with.
If you want to argue that the U.S. shouldn't be able to prohibit its citizens from doing business with TikTok you should spend some time generalizing that argument and figuring out a good reason we shouldn't be able to prohibit Americans from selling weapons to Russia, or allowing Russian companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the United States to build weapons to send back to Russia. (or any other scenario you want to make up)
"Free speech" is not a good argument here. TikTok isn't a "free speech" platform. It's just a random company selling products and services in the United States.
> "Free speech" is not a good argument here. TikTok isn't a "free speech" platform.
Free speech doesn't protect free speech platforms: free speech protects every speaker, platform, and listener against regulations targeted on the basis of content/viewpoint.
Yep and you are still protected under the 1st Amendment even if you can't use TikTok because the government stopped the company from doing business in America.
Three branches of government agree that this is not regulation targeted on the basis of content or viewpoint.
My point is that whether or not TikTok is a “free speech platform” has nothing to do with the application 1st Amendment, it was about the offered argument, not the conclusion.
OTOH, it wouldn't be the first time all three branches got the First Amendment wrong (one of the most popular 1A mantras — the one about fire in a crowded theater — came from dicta in what is now widely recognized as one such instance.)