> Molloy's ruling said that without TikTok, "User Plaintiffs are deprived of communicating by their preferred means of speech, and thus First Amendment scrutiny is appropriate."
The only way such a suit works is if the users sued, not TikTok.
Wouldn't that mean banning any web 2.0 platform infringes on my speech if I use that platform? Regardless of why the platform might be banned? There's no way that holds water
Why something is done matters to US law just as what was done matters.
And personally, since the spread of propaganda and manipulation is happening on Facebook, only targeting just the new kid on the block is terribly suspect. Especially when there's no plans to address the existing platforms and their use by foreign entities.
Say what you want about the US government, Americans vote for them and their job is to synthesize the information brought to them and take action. The Senate obviously wasn't as overwhelmingly enthusiastic about this bill as the house, but it sure seems like people on capital hill saw something concerning.
We should all probably want this information to be declassified so we can judge it for ourselves, but until then it feels unjustified to say there is no basis for the national security concern
Instead if the company was bought by big tech then shutdown some time later, is this also a free speech violation, as users are deprived of communicating by their preferred means?
So a private company can shut down or ban users as it wishes. In this case, the key fact is that Congress passed a law.
Im also curious how many people are already sharing their content to everyone else who is hosts videos.
TikTok isn't the only video host. Probably not even the best. The only thing to prefer is their discovery algorithm, and I don't think tiktoks algorithm is speech. I don't think anyone is entitled to a platform.