World News

22103 readers

329 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TikTok tells Supreme Court ‘sell-or-ban’ law stems from refusal to censor (www.scmp.com)

submitted 4 days ago by n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca to c/news@beehaw.org

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"The DoJ further said 'no one disputes' China’s goal of undermining US interests by collecting sensitive data about Americans through 'ostensibly private companies subject to its control' and by positioning assets stateside to be used at strategically advantageous moments."

Categorically untrue. Many people doubt this.

Thanks @gnu2@gnusocial.jp for the link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 6 points 3 days ago

here's the same news, from a source less likely to be (or appear to be) biased (SCOTUS Blog): Parties file final briefs before Supreme Court hears TikTok case

and for my fellow primary source nerds, you can also read all the filings in this case. the particular filing that this story is based on is "Reply of petitioners TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd" from Jan 3rd.

directly from the 31 page PDF:

The Government begins by claiming the Act’s TikTok-specific provision is subject to no First Amendment scrutiny at all—a position rejected by all three judges below. It argues ByteDance Ltd. has no rights because it is foreign, and TikTok Inc. has no rights because it has no authority over the algorithm and recommendation engine used on the U.S. platform.

as I've posted previously - news articles about this do a very poor job of explaining that the law applies primarily to Apple and Google. it requires them to remove the TikTok app from their respective app stores, with a fine of $5000 per user if they don't comply. so "it only applies to foreign companies and they have no rights" is complete bullshit.

the DOJ's position that this isn't a 1st Amendment issue is laughable. they're trying to ~~ban~~ force Apple and Google not to distribute the TikTok app, because they dislike the content published via the app. there's a specific legal term for this - viewpoint discrimination - and it's one of the clearest examples of speech restrictions that are forbidden by the 1st Amendment.