They have. FB, IG, WS, X, all of them are banned in the PRC. Source: I've been to China.banning apps sounds like some shyt China would do
I saw her vid on instagram.. you gooooodWho am I gonna be Cookingwith now?!
They have. FB, IG, WS, X, all of them are banned in the PRC. Source: I've been to China.
I do love the fact that Americans are vehemently defending their right to have all the data that Tik Tok gathers from their phones sent to the CCP as Chinese law mandates.
It boggles my mind when these people big up China as this magical place that is striving for universal harmony if not for the pesky USA.
what websites has the government banned prior to tiktok that haven't been criminally prosecuted or deemed to have broken U.S laws?
what is the current legal and technical process for the u.s government to ban a website/app whose owners haven't been accused of criminal wrong doing?
Type in "what websites has the government banned" and gtfo my face breh
I also said PRODUCTS, not just websites. The list of banned products is LONG.
Edit: Nikka talking about no criminal wrongdoing when our main enemy has control over it. What's next, Reels by the Taliban, NK Shorts.
Edit: These nikkas were also given several years to find a US buyer. SEVERAL YEARS
firstamendment.mtsu.edu
If Trump turns back the ban you know how bad the Democrats will have got played?
Trump meets with TikTok CEO as company asks Supreme Court to block ban on app
Published Mon, Dec 16 20243:29 PM ESTUpdated 4 Hours Ago
Dan Mangan@_DanMangan
Key Points
- TikTok asked the Supreme Court to block a law that would effectively ban the social media app in the United States by Jan. 19 if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not sell the company.
- On the same day, President-elect Donald Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.
- TikTok will ask the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling, which upheld the law targeting the app on the grounds of national security concerns.
An advocate holds a sign for TikTok following a news conference outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
Graeme Sloan | Bloomberg | Getty Images
TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to block a law that could effectively ban the popular social media app in the United States by Jan. 19.
On the same day, President-elect Donald Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, NBC News confirmed.
TikTok wants the Supreme Court to first consider its appeal of that law, which would require its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app by that date or force Google
and Apple
to stop supporting TikTok on their platforms in the U.S.
The request came three days after the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., refused to delay the effect of its ruling upholding the law, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
The appeals court in that ruling cited national security concerns raised by members of Congress who backed the law.
Trump earlier Monday told reporters, “We’ll take a look at TikTok,” when he was asked about the potential ban.
“You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said, pointing to his electoral performance among young voters in November.
Trump in his first term in the White House tried to ban the app, but during the recent campaign said he opposed the law passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden.
In its request Monday to the Supreme Court, TikTok’s lawyers wrote, “Congress has enacted a massive and unprecedented speech restriction. TikTok is an online platform that is one of the Nation’s most popular and important venues for communication.”
The company’s attorneys argued there is a “strong public interest” in having the Supreme Court review the appeals court ruling upholding the law in question.
“The Act will shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration,” the filing said. “This, in turn, will silence the speech of Applicants and the many Americans who use the platform to communicate about politics, commerce, arts, and other matters of public concern.”
In a statement posted on its X social media account, TikTok Policy said, “The Supreme Court has an established record of upholding Americans’ right to free speech.”
“Today, we are asking the Court to do what it has traditionally done in free speech cases: apply the most rigorous scrutiny to speech bans and conclude that it violates the First Amendment,” the statement said.
The same post said estimates show that if TikTok is banned, small businesses that use the app will lose more than $1 billion in revenue in just one month, and creators will lose nearly $300 million in earnings in one month.
products are not speech, websites/information is speech and the government saying what information you can access or someone can send you violates free speech.
imagine any country telling facebook, twitter or snapchat or youtube they have to sell their operations for their country to one of their citizens.
our main enemy is our largest trading partner
this is settled law decades ago, americans have the right to receive information including propaganda.
Lamont v. Postmaster General(1965)
Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) used the First Amendment to invalidate a federal law allowing the Postmaster General to regulate communist propaganda through the mail.
Lamont v. Postmaster General(1965)
Written by
Anuj C. Desai
, published on January 1, 2009 last updated on July 2, 2024
Corliss Lamont was one of the founders and the first chairman of the National Council on American-Soviet Friendship in the 1940s, which pushed for the United States to form an anti-fascist alliance with the Soviet Union. Lamont successfully challenged a federal law on First Amendment grounds that allowed the Postmaster General to review material sent from abroad to determine if it was communist propaganda and restrict its delivery. In this photo, Lamont (left) is greeted by singer Paul Robeson after addressing a rally calling for diplomatic and economic cooperation with the Soviet Union (AP Photo/Tom Fitzsimmons, used with permission from the Associated Press)
The Supreme Court decision in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965), invalidated a statute allowing the Postmaster General to regulate the flow of “communist political propaganda” through the mail.
Lamont was the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a federal statute under the speech and press clauses of the First Amendment, the first case to hold that the First Amendment includes a “right to receive,” and the first time a justice used the phrase “marketplace of ideas” in a judicial opinion.
Law required postmaster general to hold ‘communist propaganda’
The law at issue in Lamont required the postmaster general to review postal matter sent from abroad and determine at his or her discretion which constituted “communist political propaganda.” If the postmaster general determined that the mail was indeed communist propaganda, the addressee of the material would receive a postcard instead of the mail.
The addressee could return the postcard to the post office indicating a desire to receive the materials, upon receipt of which the post office would deliver them. If the addressee did not return the postcard, the post office would not deliver the withheld materials. The statute exempted sealed letters, materials sent pursuant to a subscription, and all mail sent to government agencies and educational institutions.
Dr. Corliss Lamont, who engaged in publishing and distributing pamphlets, filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The Post Office had allowed one controversial piece of mail through in an attempt make his suit moot. However, the Supreme Court struck down the law.
Court: Holding mail based on content violates First Amendment
The Court invalidated the law because it “require[d] an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressees[’] First Amendment rights.” The court concluded that the statute was “almost certain to have a deterrent effect, especially as respects those who have sensitive positions,” and thus “amount[ed] to an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the Court’s unanimous opinion, and Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote a separate concurrence.
Brennan: ‘Right to receive publications’ is fundamental right
Justice Brennan made explicit what had been implicit in the majority opinion, declaring that “the right to receive publications is . . . a fundamental right,” the protection of which is “necessary to make the express guarantees [of the First Amendment] fully meaningful.” Although mentioned in a concurrence only, the “right to receive” was clearly acknowledged by the entire Court because the Court premised its holding on the addressee’s, rather than the foreign speaker’s, constitutional claim in order to avoid the difficult question of whether foreign governments have First Amendment rights.
