Comment by josephcsible
9 months ago
> the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here.
No it isn't. The argument here is that it isn't a restriction on speech at all.
9 months ago
> the 1st Amendment doesnt say the speech can be overridden by a compelling national security interest, which is the argument here.
No it isn't. The argument here is that it isn't a restriction on speech at all.
The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content but it's not a 1st Amendment issue? Why are people buying this lame argument?
Because the people 250 years ago could not have imagined the problems that we'd have invented for ourselves in these days. It was always meant to be a living document with a process of adding and changing amendments. And in between that time the the way people interact has grown more complex. If you took those same intelligent men and dropped them into today, the Amendments would look different.
If only they made a process to change it…
2 replies →
> The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content
No, and no one is saying they can. The law says American companies can't do business with a certain foreign-owned company.
It is beyond settled in law that this is something that the US government can do.
It’s not a certain company, it’s a whole class of them (partially defined by POTUS’ whims)
Sure, the government can do that, and when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information, it introduces First Amendment questions that must be addressed.
“The government says CNN can’t post stories from BBC” isn’t immediately resolved by “it’s a foreign company.”
4 replies →
Because it's not the content but rather the company behind it. The exact same .apk would be allowed if ByteDance divested.