Although the application used by 170 million Americans could get a last-minute reprieve, the justices questioned whether the law even regulates speech.
Illuminating analysis (as usual) but I just wanted to note concerning “that that argument requires ignoring constitutional structure” — I would suggest that this Court is quite adept at that very thing … when ideology dictates.
I thought that the law just required the app to be removed from app stores, which should allow existing customers to continue to use it (although likely with limited updates, especially for iPhone customers). For android users, there will likely be a number of sites that provide the app to be side-loaded.
As I wrote previously, the law "will bar TikTok’s inclusion in any “marketplace (including an online mobile application store)“ and any internet hosting services “to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating“ of the TikTok app for users in the U.S. beginning on January 19 unless ByteDance — the ultimate owner of TikTok — sufficiently divests of TikTok so that the federal government no longer believes it is controlled by a foreign adversary."
I think that your "just" is understating the effects of the second provision. It's certainly not a disappearing act, but, due to the exorbitant fines, it's going to be very difficult to do anything to maintain TikTok in the U.S. come January 19 (absent TikTok and/or the creators getting a delay or merits win at SCOTUS).
Having read the briefs and listened to a portion of the oral arguments this morning, my understanding is that US customers can continue to use TikTok if ByteDance sells TikTok to an owner not designated by the statute to be a foreign adversary. In other words, Congress deemed control of ByteDance by China/CCP to pose an unacceptable national security risk because of access to and potential control over content, including millions of American users' and users' content AND contacts' personal data. Once divested (as directed by the statute), the TikTok platform may continue to be enjoyed "as is" for news, culture, etc. Thus, the law only limits the ownership/control of the platform; it does not disturb Americans’ right under the first amendment to produce or access content on the platform (assuming it is divested by ByteDance).
Ref. Pub. L. 118-50, 138 Stat. 895, final version 4/23/2024. Division H. Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act; Division I. Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act.
But, other than banning it from the app stores, what stops current customers from continuing to use it?
The congresscritters have proven themselves to be technical imbeciles on many occasions, so they may think that some magical firewall would stop it (except they wouldn’t know what a firewall is, since at least the GQP wizards prolly still think of the Internet as a bunch of pipes 🤪). Maybe there is another of Cheetolini’s big-ass faucets that can be turned off???
"A TikTok ban wouldn’t mean the app disappears from current users’ phones on Jan. 19.
"New users in the U.S. would likely no longer be able to download TikTok from app stores, and it would become inaccessible through internet browsers. Current users would no longer be able to download software and security updates, and the app could become unusable over time. "
That makes sense. Especially for iPhone users. Android has a more diverse set of options (all would need to be outside of the U.S.), which would likely provide “jailbreak” versions, if only to thumb their noses at the congresscritters that tried to kill it (likely while accepting massive bribes/campaign contributions)
Thank you. Your step by step explanations are so clear and precise that everything just falls into place. Of course, I don’t read Substack on a tiny phone screen which may make it easier to absorb every word.
"Chief Justice John Roberts told both Francisco and Fisher outright that 'Congress doesn’t care what’s on TikTok.'"
Counterpoint - yes they do. Of course they do. They may not have stated it, but congress is very concerned that people on TikTok are exposed to viewpoints contrary to those endorsed by the US government.
Illuminating analysis (as usual) but I just wanted to note concerning “that that argument requires ignoring constitutional structure” — I would suggest that this Court is quite adept at that very thing … when ideology dictates.
Oh, for sure. And they could here! Which definitely was my not-so-subtle suggestion.
Sadly, apparently a bit too subtle for me: I missed it, perhaps too enamored with my own “wit.
I thought that the law just required the app to be removed from app stores, which should allow existing customers to continue to use it (although likely with limited updates, especially for iPhone customers). For android users, there will likely be a number of sites that provide the app to be side-loaded.
As I wrote previously, the law "will bar TikTok’s inclusion in any “marketplace (including an online mobile application store)“ and any internet hosting services “to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating“ of the TikTok app for users in the U.S. beginning on January 19 unless ByteDance — the ultimate owner of TikTok — sufficiently divests of TikTok so that the federal government no longer believes it is controlled by a foreign adversary."
I think that your "just" is understating the effects of the second provision. It's certainly not a disappearing act, but, due to the exorbitant fines, it's going to be very difficult to do anything to maintain TikTok in the U.S. come January 19 (absent TikTok and/or the creators getting a delay or merits win at SCOTUS).
Having read the briefs and listened to a portion of the oral arguments this morning, my understanding is that US customers can continue to use TikTok if ByteDance sells TikTok to an owner not designated by the statute to be a foreign adversary. In other words, Congress deemed control of ByteDance by China/CCP to pose an unacceptable national security risk because of access to and potential control over content, including millions of American users' and users' content AND contacts' personal data. Once divested (as directed by the statute), the TikTok platform may continue to be enjoyed "as is" for news, culture, etc. Thus, the law only limits the ownership/control of the platform; it does not disturb Americans’ right under the first amendment to produce or access content on the platform (assuming it is divested by ByteDance).
Ref. Pub. L. 118-50, 138 Stat. 895, final version 4/23/2024. Division H. Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act; Division I. Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act.
But, other than banning it from the app stores, what stops current customers from continuing to use it?
The congresscritters have proven themselves to be technical imbeciles on many occasions, so they may think that some magical firewall would stop it (except they wouldn’t know what a firewall is, since at least the GQP wizards prolly still think of the Internet as a bunch of pipes 🤪). Maybe there is another of Cheetolini’s big-ass faucets that can be turned off???
USA TODAY wrote:
"What would a TikTok ban mean for users?
"A TikTok ban wouldn’t mean the app disappears from current users’ phones on Jan. 19.
"New users in the U.S. would likely no longer be able to download TikTok from app stores, and it would become inaccessible through internet browsers. Current users would no longer be able to download software and security updates, and the app could become unusable over time. "
That makes sense. Especially for iPhone users. Android has a more diverse set of options (all would need to be outside of the U.S.), which would likely provide “jailbreak” versions, if only to thumb their noses at the congresscritters that tried to kill it (likely while accepting massive bribes/campaign contributions)
Black citizenship was illegally granted in 1868. Period.
Thank you. Your step by step explanations are so clear and precise that everything just falls into place. Of course, I don’t read Substack on a tiny phone screen which may make it easier to absorb every word.
Thanks for sharing!
"Chief Justice John Roberts told both Francisco and Fisher outright that 'Congress doesn’t care what’s on TikTok.'"
Counterpoint - yes they do. Of course they do. They may not have stated it, but congress is very concerned that people on TikTok are exposed to viewpoints contrary to those endorsed by the US government.
Would need to speak more with you about this 🗣️