I feel like they've got a strong constitutional case. One BBC article I read said that 60% of their company ownership is by global hedge funds so they just plainly aren't a Chinese company. Singling them out for having dissident information through an act of congress is precisely what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect against. With the sale supposed to happen in November at the earliest, the red scare will either fade by then or become a much larger issue they can capitalise on.
The constitution means jack shit, it wouldn’t matter if it explicitly stated “TikTok shall not be banned”, the state does whatever the fuck it wants and the hardest part is coming up with the weasel words in the judgement that explains how it’s perfectly constitutional, ackshually.
I'm not an expert on US law, but singling them out like this via legislation smells a whole lot like a bill of attainder, which is banned under Article 1 (not the First Amendment, though that's definitely relevant also) of the Constitution.
I feel like they've got a strong constitutional case. One BBC article I read said that 60% of their company ownership is by global hedge funds so they just plainly aren't a Chinese company. Singling them out for having dissident information through an act of congress is precisely what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect against. With the sale supposed to happen in November at the earliest, the red scare will either fade by then or become a much larger issue they can capitalise on.
The constitution means jack shit, it wouldn’t matter if it explicitly stated “TikTok shall not be banned”, the state does whatever the fuck it wants and the hardest part is coming up with the weasel words in the judgement that explains how it’s perfectly constitutional, ackshually.
TikTok is big. Can't they bribe the judges?
The American Empire is bigger. And probably has more extrajudicial ways of dealing with noncompliant persons than TikTok does.
a bunch of freaks think the constitution only applies to us citizens.
i can't predict confidently whether business rights or foreign no rights will win out here.
Supreme Court did say companies that operate in America are still allowed to use slave labor abroad.
But also granted by God and has metaphysical power beyond the paper its written on and the willingness to enforce it
Don't worry, if this somehow gets subverted by a court it will somehow be to make things worse (i.e. granting corporations at large more rights)
I'm not an expert on US law, but singling them out like this via legislation smells a whole lot like a bill of attainder, which is banned under Article 1 (not the First Amendment, though that's definitely relevant also) of the Constitution.
Don't US courts normally roll over whenever the regime says "but muh national security!"?