> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.)
There isn’t. There is a category of foreign adversaries. It’s negative selection, not positive. “Preferred owners” would be the U.S. government requiring joint venturing with a hand-picked JV partner. Like Beijing.
Come on, spend 5 more minutes thinking about this.
Phase 1: restricted if from China
Phase 2: restricted if influenced by China
Phase 3: restricted if sympathetic to China
Phase 4: China isn’t the only bad thing for America. If you have the following ideas, those are just as dangerous. “Speech is violence.” Also “silence is violence.”
This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times.
> This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times
If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.)
Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment.
> It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11
Incorrect. Focus on the argument.
> Slippery slopes exist
Sure. But concluding by arguing their existence is a literal fallacy.
Another slippery slope: food safety. Or our aversion to animal and child cruelty. Compounding social effects that build on themselves. That these exist isn’t disputed. That they exist also doesn’t mean they always manifest. In this case, there is zero evidence of compounding and every one of moderation through iteration. (Contrast Trump’s first efforts with the House’s first bill with what finally passed.)
… right because the fourth amendment says “search and seizure”. And as you say, that’s a search.
I am not contesting that the first amendment fails to name TikTok. I’m contesting that the first amendment does not protect your right to own media distribution channels.
We have laws that limit ownership of distribution channels already.
I think that the first amendment prevents congress from banning tiktok for the reason that the content is objectionable. Instead they would need to argue that it is a nation security risk (spyware, etc)
If we regulate the Internet like we do the airwaves, "obscenity, indecency, and profanity" are now illegal.[0]
>It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
>Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has authority to pursue criminal violations. Violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.
Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.
I didn't mean to say that that law might apply here (no idea there), just that it seems to me possible at least in some situations to put limits on foreign ownership for certain mass media.
I agree. I just meant that they might have some trouble with that when it comes to the legal framework to do so.
Most of our social media companies can't operate in China at all. Some of the US companies that do operate in China take on part ownership of their Chinese company from the Chinese government. It's unbalanced that we would allow TikTok to operate without more oversight or some US ownership/control.
> think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies
Source?
Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2].
> > think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies
> Source?
The first thing that comes to mind is Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC [0], where part of the holding relied on the limited available radio spectrum compared to other publication mediums.
How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?