Likewise, as a consumer of content, you no longer have access to the opinions posted to tiktok if it is banned. This may limit your ability to be exposed to certain ideas.
I can post/view short videos to Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, among others. I don't see how any one platform embodies my ability to speak.
It is also notable that the other firms you mention are American, and thus may embody a certain viewpoint and culture.
I find it hard to believe that a single medium like billboards or an app like TikTok is such a unique thing that it's a burden on people to communicate without them.
Otherwise, one might argue that the government can ban specific newspapers as there are other newspapers where journalists can publish, or that the government can cab paper newspapers since people can publish online.
Can the government ban harmful foreign products?
I think so. That is something that is actively being discussed. One could make the argument for that and bring it to court.
Why are you okay with the government preventing you from putting a sign up on your property?
That tracks.
> they are already banned by states and municipalities.
Which means nothing to your argument in support of the government denying you your first amendment rights.
The law is heavily based on precedent. Seems like a big difference between speech and a specific communication mechanism.
What insult?
> The law is heavily based on precedent.
Yes, and that precedent is on my side.
You admit your ignorance, but when people who aren't ignorant contradict your assertions, you double down on your ignorance and consistently move the goal posts.
At the end of the day, you are arguing in support of violations of the first amendment. If you find that declaration insulting, reevaluate why you insist your ignorance is the right approach.
That being said, I'm also open to other people giving up that right and signing onto an HOA.
However, you have to have that right in the first place to give it up.