Hacker News Reader

> You don't believe social media can influence people's beliefs and behaviors.

> You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes.

Isn't freedom of speech (as understood in the US) exactly that, a prohibition on any regulation that prevents you from influencing people's belief and behavior?

Sure, there are limits on free speech. You aren't allowed to freely slander people, to engage in false advertising, to commit fraud, treason, etc. But a new law that specifically prevents a company from showing you a selection of videos on fears that this selection might be biased in a way that influences people is another level. It not only prevents them from speaking directly, it specifically bans them because of how they might choose which legal speech they might show you.

I completely understand why people want to do it. Allowing foreign adversaries this much influence is dangerous. But it is also unprecedented, and because of the indirection feels like a heavier restriction than say banning a Chinese newspaper from publishing in the US.

I don't know whether the first amendment is meant to stop this kind of regulation, but I suppose that's one the courts have either settled already, or will get a chance to settle. I would guess that a foreign company's right to either operate a business in the U.S., or service U.S. citizens from a foreign country, is treated differently when it comes to first amendment protections compared to say a domestic business or a private citizen shouting on a street corner.

Lamont v Postmaster General will likely come up if this bill passes. It concerned Americans receiving foreign propaganda in the mail and the Postal Service attempting to stop this distribution.

That case found that you couldn't make a U.S. Person opt-in to receiving foreign propaganda, and for fairly obvious reasons I think.

This case wouldn't have that problem.

Why would it not? It's regulating the flow of protected speech materials, exactly the same as in the precedent case...

In the precedent the U.S. government was clearly trying to find the names of Americans interested in foreign propaganda. Here the U.S. government is trying to stop ownership by foreign adversaries of social media operating in the U.S. That's clearly a significant distinction.

Did you read the actual case? It established that under the 1st amendment is a right to receive information and ideas. That established precedent is clearly at odds with the government trying to ban a source of information and ideas in the US.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/

From the main opinion (as opposed to Brennan's concurrence; the court was unanimous):

> We conclude that the Act, as construed and applied, is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee's First Amendment rights. As stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Milwaukee Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407, 255 U. S. 437 (dissenting):

> We do not have here, any more than we had in Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U. S. 146, any question concerning the extent to which Congress may classify the mail and fix the charges for its carriage. Nor do we reach the question whether the standard here applied could pass constitutional muster. Nor do we deal with the right of Customs to inspect material from abroad for contraband. We rest on the narrow ground that the addressee, in order to receive his mail, must request in writing that it be delivered. This amounts, in our judgment, to an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him. This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect, especially as respects those who have sensitive positions.

You might be confused because Brennan says what you say the court said in his concurrence, but that nothing in his concurrence is dicta. The controlling opinion lays out the dicta, and it says what I wrote, as you can see from the quotes.

I see it as related to the app store. Will I be allowed to run a site that distributes the TikTok app? Or is the government restricting me from doing that?

The rights acknowledged and protected by the U.S. Constitution are rights of U.S. Persons (citizens, nationals, and permanent residents). They are not all rights of non-U.S. Persons, though some, like the Fifth Amendment, clearly are rights of all Persons. For example, if you're a tourist accused of committing a crime in the U.S. you do have a right to counsel and a right to not self-incriminate, but also you don't have the right to not be deported, and you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

Which rights are for U.S. Persons only, and which are for all Persons, is not entirely clear to me. But I strongly suspect that freedom of speech and of the press is mainly for U.S. Persons only.

It will certainly be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this.

If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens? The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.

Yes, a government is generally in charge of granting citizenship for the population which it represents. This is a mechanism that seems to work for every functioning country in the world.

What's the alternative you're suggesting, exactly?

I don’t know why you are arguing against a phantom position. I never said the government doesn’t grant citizenship.

As an external observer, I believe you are arguing in bad faith on this subject. Just my 2c.

> The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen

That's your quote which I'm referencing. I think that arrangement makes perfect sense, it seems as if you're in disagreement.

I'll ask again, what's the alternative arrangement you're trying to champion here? If you don't have answer I can only assume this argument's being made in bad faith, I'm trying my best to interpret your comment charitably but unless you're more clear about what you're presenting, I'm going to read it as it was presented.

If you really believed in that interpretation—that the bill of rights guarantees equal and identical liberties to everyone regardless of citizenship status—then what's the argument that those same rights extend only within the borders of U.S. geography? Why would we not, for example, enforce the second amendment right to bear arms on the benighted people of Australia, who don't have it? If we wanted our actions to be 100% consistent with that interpretation of the language of the constitution, wouldn't that be the outcome?

So, I think the answer to your question is that it's not feasible, practical, or desirable to be 100% consistent, and that the law is mostly cobbled together, full of edge cases, hammered into something that sort of works most of the time, and makes sense if it's dark enough and you squint.

> If you believe that the constitution protects inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government then how can those rights be denied to non citizens?

I was not stating an opinion as to which way it should be. I was describing reality, and stating that I'm not sure which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to foreigners and which don't.

"Inalienable rights" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution, and the courts hold the Declaration of Independence to have no legal force whatsoever. Where I was talking about actual jurisprudence (like it or not), you seem to be attacking a straw man.

> The government gets to decide who is and isn’t a citizen,

Yes, but within some pretty tight limits. Persons born on U.S. soil to persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. have birthright citizenship, and this cannot be taken away by statutes or bureaucratic acts. Others can naturalize according to statutes.

> which would mean they can decide who is or isn’t eligible for so-called “inalienable” rights.

It wouldn't be a country if everyone in the world had all the same rights as the country's citizens. Some rights have to be reserved to the citizens. De minimis the right to permanently reside and vote in that country. If you don't have a right to reside permanently in some country, then there must be other things which you are not allowed to do in that country.

I think there's one extension, although you _kind of_ covered it with "you just like the product"

Some people are addicted to the product. It's not even that they like it any more, and they can see the harm it causes, but they also can't imagine their lives without it.

I think it's a vital move by the government, but I also think it's too late.

Yeah, taking away someone's drug right before they're supposed to vote on whether they like you is not a good way to get people to like you.

I think the timing of this is really dangerous for democracy in the US. It may spur a fury and sense of betrayal in a lot of people, meaning they either don't vote, or they vote for the guy who makes a living on telling them the world is out to get them and no one cares about them.

* You don't believe China should be an "adversary"

I tried to keep my description vague and not specific to China. I agree that it's relevant whether China is or is not an adversary, and that China is the obvious proximate target of this legislation.

Is your point to say that you specifically don't believe China is an adversary, thus the bill is off the mark? I could read your item as saying either that, or this: in order to promote better relations between adversarial nations, bills restricting the ability of one nation to operate in another are indefensible. In other words, to make sure China is not an adversary, TikTok should not be banned.

Let’s all keep in mind that “adversaries” are just regular countries that some people in government have decided are a competitive threat or strategic obstacle. This is, frankly, bullshit.

If you want to declare a country an enemy of the United States and cut off my ability to access information from that country, you should have the fortitude to declare war. Otherwise I’m not interested in the opinion of some bureaucrat at State, thank you very much.

I don't think the government should be like China and ban me from seeing content in social media spheres it doesn't like.

I would imagine there is a fair portion of those opposing it here who don't have the US' best interests in mind.

How is upholding the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution not having the US best interests in mind? This is so PATRIOT ACT 2.0

> * You believe the above, but think a government cannot (or should not) regulate companies operating in its jurisdiction for those aforementioned purposes.

Another way to word that is: You don't believe that the millions of people voluntary using the app are useful idiots who need to protected from themselves via government force. More likely is that the government has deemed the platform uncontrollable/uncensorable because of its foreign ownership.

Yeah, you're missing that it's most likely unconstitutional, because it violates the First amendment.

Also related, but somewhat separate, is just that people should have freedom to information.

That's not clear. Does the First Amendment protect non-U.S. persons' right to speak and publish?

No, but it protects Americans' right to receive speech. Americans have a right to hear the speech that is on Tik Tok.

The First Amendment does not directly protect the speech of non-US persons outside of US territory. However, US courts have held that the First Amendment can limit the US government's ability to restrict the speech of non-US persons abroad if that speech is directed at or received by people in the US.