C-Span | Supreme Court Hears Case on TikTok Ban (www.youtube.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Solicitor: This [violation of freedom of speech] was passed with a broad bipartisan consensus. Our legislators rarely agree so we should just let them do it.

Edit:

Solicitor: "the PRC might make false flag anti-China content" lmao what?

Also the solicitor is trying to argue that the ban isn't content based (aka definitely a 1st amendment violation) while frequently mentioning supposed or theoretical content manipulation by China. The Justices don't seem to be buying it.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago

"This law isn't regulating the US users in any way."

It's literally banning a widely used platform of speech for them.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

KJB: "Isn't the point that the content of TikTok would change under a new owner?"

Sotomayor: "How is the post-divestiture provision about the algorithm not a speech impediment?"

Yeah, the Justices don't really seem to be buying it.

this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025

44 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22659 readers

174 users here now

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to The Labour Community.

Take any slop posts to the slop trough

Main is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]