@jjrs.bsky.social
Even if Instagram was as much of a threat as Tiktok, that's not a reason to give in to their demands and let them stay open even as they remain associated with a foreign adversary. It's a reason to let them close shop and then go after Meta too!
btw unfortunately they are allowed to spy- patriot act
btw unfortunately they are allowed to spy- patriot act
January 15, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Even if Instagram was as much of a threat as Tiktok, that's not a reason to give in to their demands and let them stay open even as they remain associated with a foreign adversary. It's a reason to let them close shop and then go after Meta too!
btw unfortunately they are allowed to spy- patriot act
btw unfortunately they are allowed to spy- patriot act
I'm really not sure what you're asking, tbh. You keep trying to elicit answers out of me while staying cryptic about what your point is. Why not just come out with it already?
January 14, 2025 at 4:53 AM
I'm really not sure what you're asking, tbh. You keep trying to elicit answers out of me while staying cryptic about what your point is. Why not just come out with it already?
I'm guessing you're going to say "aha, you said 1A only protects Americans but actually it can also protect foreigners WHO ARE IN America" or some such thing. If so, I'm sorry every detail of the reply wasn't sufficiently detailed and qualified enough for you. Point is it doesn't protect Bytedance.
January 14, 2025 at 4:34 AM
I'm guessing you're going to say "aha, you said 1A only protects Americans but actually it can also protect foreigners WHO ARE IN America" or some such thing. If so, I'm sorry every detail of the reply wasn't sufficiently detailed and qualified enough for you. Point is it doesn't protect Bytedance.
lol, if you refuse to connect all this to a ruling on the case I’ll pass on further engagement with you, sweetie. If you can’t circle back to the reality of a ruling it’s doubtful you have much of importance to say about the substantive issue. That’s the problem with a lot of 1A absolutists on here.
January 14, 2025 at 1:45 AM
lol, if you refuse to connect all this to a ruling on the case I’ll pass on further engagement with you, sweetie. If you can’t circle back to the reality of a ruling it’s doubtful you have much of importance to say about the substantive issue. That’s the problem with a lot of 1A absolutists on here.
> Have justices on the Court never asked questions contrary to their own beliefs?
Well that brings me back to my previous question, which you didn’t answer. Given your certainty this is unconstitutional, how do you think they will rule?
Well that brings me back to my previous question, which you didn’t answer. Given your certainty this is unconstitutional, how do you think they will rule?
January 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
> Have justices on the Court never asked questions contrary to their own beliefs?
Well that brings me back to my previous question, which you didn’t answer. Given your certainty this is unconstitutional, how do you think they will rule?
Well that brings me back to my previous question, which you didn’t answer. Given your certainty this is unconstitutional, how do you think they will rule?
The problem is TikTok America refuses to disentangle themselves from ByteDance in China, which calls the shots. And they are not bound by US law or protected by the first amendment. The liberal justices seem to agree with that too.
January 14, 2025 at 1:27 AM
The problem is TikTok America refuses to disentangle themselves from ByteDance in China, which calls the shots. And they are not bound by US law or protected by the first amendment. The liberal justices seem to agree with that too.
I do think national security concerns can permit very minor abridgements to TikTok America’s 1A rights, yes. And I do think their 1A concerns here are minor and a front for a trade issue.
How about you though? You seem very certain this would be unconstitutional. How do you think they will rule?
How about you though? You seem very certain this would be unconstitutional. How do you think they will rule?
January 14, 2025 at 1:21 AM
I do think national security concerns can permit very minor abridgements to TikTok America’s 1A rights, yes. And I do think their 1A concerns here are minor and a front for a trade issue.
How about you though? You seem very certain this would be unconstitutional. How do you think they will rule?
How about you though? You seem very certain this would be unconstitutional. How do you think they will rule?
I thought this law had a much better chance of passing that other people here, but I thought that if so, it might be the usual 6-3 or maybe 7 to2. What is surprising is that even the liberal judges seem to share all these concerns. The 1A absolutists may have got this wrong.
January 14, 2025 at 1:11 AM
I thought this law had a much better chance of passing that other people here, but I thought that if so, it might be the usual 6-3 or maybe 7 to2. What is surprising is that even the liberal judges seem to share all these concerns. The 1A absolutists may have got this wrong.
I absolutely acknowledge I’m not an expert lol. That’s why I’m surprised that the court seems so strongly (and perhaps almost unanimously?) sympathetic to the all the same concerns I voiced here, even though professed experts here insisted it wouldn’t matter at all.
January 14, 2025 at 1:07 AM
I absolutely acknowledge I’m not an expert lol. That’s why I’m surprised that the court seems so strongly (and perhaps almost unanimously?) sympathetic to the all the same concerns I voiced here, even though professed experts here insisted it wouldn’t matter at all.
From the looks of things you might well find what you’re looking for after a ruling on the current case.
January 14, 2025 at 12:54 AM
From the looks of things you might well find what you’re looking for after a ruling on the current case.
Yes, I am aware that people are trying to cast TikTok’s American operations as absolutely protected by the first amendment. But like myself it doesn’t look like the court agrees with you and others here on that.
January 14, 2025 at 12:51 AM
Yes, I am aware that people are trying to cast TikTok’s American operations as absolutely protected by the first amendment. But like myself it doesn’t look like the court agrees with you and others here on that.
About foreign adversaries (and for that matter bytedance, which is beholden to the orders of the CCP, not US law) not being protected by the first amendment? Yes definitely.
January 14, 2025 at 12:48 AM
About foreign adversaries (and for that matter bytedance, which is beholden to the orders of the CCP, not US law) not being protected by the first amendment? Yes definitely.
Well this entire time I’ve said the government’s argument would rest on national security concerns. We can haggle about the exact reasoning through which that overrides 1A issues, but that’s the long and short of it.
January 13, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Well this entire time I’ve said the government’s argument would rest on national security concerns. We can haggle about the exact reasoning through which that overrides 1A issues, but that’s the long and short of it.
TikTok’s lawyer is indeed arguing that the US government has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda and seems to be saying that 1A rights for US citizens supersede any national security concerns. People here strongly agree with that sentiment, but we’ll see what the court says.
January 13, 2025 at 10:28 PM
TikTok’s lawyer is indeed arguing that the US government has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda and seems to be saying that 1A rights for US citizens supersede any national security concerns. People here strongly agree with that sentiment, but we’ll see what the court says.
If you scroll upward through this thread (and upward, and upward, and upward) you can find it.
Bottom line there’s evidence TikTok conduct surveillance for the CCP, and tweaks the algorithm for CCP propaganda. People here see those things as irrelevant but we’ll see if the court agrees.
Bottom line there’s evidence TikTok conduct surveillance for the CCP, and tweaks the algorithm for CCP propaganda. People here see those things as irrelevant but we’ll see if the court agrees.
January 13, 2025 at 9:47 PM
If you scroll upward through this thread (and upward, and upward, and upward) you can find it.
Bottom line there’s evidence TikTok conduct surveillance for the CCP, and tweaks the algorithm for CCP propaganda. People here see those things as irrelevant but we’ll see if the court agrees.
Bottom line there’s evidence TikTok conduct surveillance for the CCP, and tweaks the algorithm for CCP propaganda. People here see those things as irrelevant but we’ll see if the court agrees.
So you would still say you see the government’s case as very weak?
January 13, 2025 at 9:43 PM
So you would still say you see the government’s case as very weak?
I understand they ask hypotheticals. But presumably they ask hypotheticals that are relevant to the case at hand rather than absurd non-issues.
I know you consider this anti-China hysteria, but there is evidence congress is justified in seeing China as a problem.
January 13, 2025 at 9:42 PM
I understand they ask hypotheticals. But presumably they ask hypotheticals that are relevant to the case at hand rather than absurd non-issues.
I know you consider this anti-China hysteria, but there is evidence congress is justified in seeing China as a problem.
Well, we’ll see what the court has to say about this soon enough.
I would expect a 6 to 3 decision against TikTok regardless. But what’s interesting is the 3 liberal justices seem to share the majority’s concerns.
I would expect a 6 to 3 decision against TikTok regardless. But what’s interesting is the 3 liberal justices seem to share the majority’s concerns.
January 13, 2025 at 9:36 PM
Well, we’ll see what the court has to say about this soon enough.
I would expect a 6 to 3 decision against TikTok regardless. But what’s interesting is the 3 liberal justices seem to share the majority’s concerns.
I would expect a 6 to 3 decision against TikTok regardless. But what’s interesting is the 3 liberal justices seem to share the majority’s concerns.
Yes, I’m aware many people here share your opinion, and very forcefully and adamantly. Let’s wait and see what the court says.
January 13, 2025 at 9:33 PM
Yes, I’m aware many people here share your opinion, and very forcefully and adamantly. Let’s wait and see what the court says.
Here you go.
This is actually a good example of a Blindspot of 1A advocates here. A lot of you don’t seem aware of these matters because you only deal in civil law. Mike Dunford didn’t know either. I replied to him with the same information but it didn’t seem to change his mind at the time.
This is actually a good example of a Blindspot of 1A advocates here. A lot of you don’t seem aware of these matters because you only deal in civil law. Mike Dunford didn’t know either. I replied to him with the same information but it didn’t seem to change his mind at the time.
January 13, 2025 at 9:22 PM
Here you go.
This is actually a good example of a Blindspot of 1A advocates here. A lot of you don’t seem aware of these matters because you only deal in civil law. Mike Dunford didn’t know either. I replied to him with the same information but it didn’t seem to change his mind at the time.
This is actually a good example of a Blindspot of 1A advocates here. A lot of you don’t seem aware of these matters because you only deal in civil law. Mike Dunford didn’t know either. I replied to him with the same information but it didn’t seem to change his mind at the time.
The problem is TikTok is making it clear that they can’t divest from bytedance because bytedance owns the algorithm. And the justices are saying that bytedance is a Chinese company with no one a rights.
January 13, 2025 at 9:17 PM
The problem is TikTok is making it clear that they can’t divest from bytedance because bytedance owns the algorithm. And the justices are saying that bytedance is a Chinese company with no one a rights.
If you say so, Kathryn. I’d rather discuss the legal issues so I will decline to getting into a long interaction with you about your opinion of what trolling is.
January 13, 2025 at 9:11 PM
If you say so, Kathryn. I’d rather discuss the legal issues so I will decline to getting into a long interaction with you about your opinion of what trolling is.
I don’t see anything intrinsically trollish or even rude about following up and asking people if they’ve changed their opinions. But I suppose if one takes a lot of pride in their public legal takes getting something wrong could sting, and even a question as simple as that could feel like an attack.
January 13, 2025 at 9:00 PM
I don’t see anything intrinsically trollish or even rude about following up and asking people if they’ve changed their opinions. But I suppose if one takes a lot of pride in their public legal takes getting something wrong could sting, and even a question as simple as that could feel like an attack.
What’s interesting to me is that they’re raising all the matters people here assured me were non-issues.
My question stands though. In light of their questions, have you changed you opinion on how courts will view the government’s concerns? Before you seemed doubtful they had any case at all.
My question stands though. In light of their questions, have you changed you opinion on how courts will view the government’s concerns? Before you seemed doubtful they had any case at all.
January 13, 2025 at 8:54 PM
What’s interesting to me is that they’re raising all the matters people here assured me were non-issues.
My question stands though. In light of their questions, have you changed you opinion on how courts will view the government’s concerns? Before you seemed doubtful they had any case at all.
My question stands though. In light of their questions, have you changed you opinion on how courts will view the government’s concerns? Before you seemed doubtful they had any case at all.
Well apparently I’m good enough at it that Sotomayor, Kagen and KBJ share my legal opinions. So to be honest with you I’m really not that concerned about you or your most belligerent followers’ opinion of how good I am at it. Not agreeing with you seems to be working out.
January 12, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Well apparently I’m good enough at it that Sotomayor, Kagen and KBJ share my legal opinions. So to be honest with you I’m really not that concerned about you or your most belligerent followers’ opinion of how good I am at it. Not agreeing with you seems to be working out.