Technology

59402 readers

2949 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

190

TikTok sues to block prospective US app ban (www.cnn.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] huginn@feddit.it 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Lamont v. Postmaster General(1965)

Supreme Court ruled that publishing propaganda in America is free speech. You're not allowed to interfere with an American's access to propaganda

Justice Brennan made explicit what had been implicit in the majority opinion, declaring that “the right to receive publications is . . . a fundamental right,” the protection of which is “necessary to make the express guarantees [of the First Amendment] fully meaningful.”

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm aware of the precedent, but there's a pretty massive difference between being able to receive printed media, and being able to have continual access to post and contribute content to a foreign propoganda tool that uses an algorithm to purposefully suppress subjects the CCP disapproves of. I don't believe the precedent is going to be applicable here, but IANAL, and maybe ByteDance's lawyers think this defense will be a slam dunk.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To me it sounds the exact same. The language doesn't say "printed propaganda that doesn't have a lot of nuance" it just says publications.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 2 points 6 months ago

Sure, but if you tried to explain TikTok to the ruling judge on the 1965 case, I think their head would explode. The ruling isn't some all powerful precedent that shuts down the ban before the suit can begin, it's old and outdated. Something like TikTok was not even getting theorized at the time, you can't seriously expect it to be treated the same way.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago

I don't think the source of propaganda is relevant to the distinction being made by the precedent. If TikTok can be considered propaganda, then so can Facebook or Twitter or Instagram because they all utilize algorithms subject to the control or manipulation by their owners.