How can that be reconciled with abridging the freedom of speech of millions of citizens by requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I think it won't.
By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.)
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...
There isn’t. There is a category of foreign adversaries. It’s negative selection, not positive. “Preferred owners” would be the U.S. government requiring joint venturing with a hand-picked JV partner. Like Beijing.
Phase 1: restricted if from China
Phase 2: restricted if influenced by China
Phase 3: restricted if sympathetic to China
Phase 4: China isn’t the only bad thing for America. If you have the following ideas, those are just as dangerous. “Speech is violence.” Also “silence is violence.”
This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times.
If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.)
Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment.
You used to be able to get on an airplane without scanning your retinas.
You used to be able to walk into a bank and make a transaction without it being immediately reported to the IRS.
Your private correspondence was not scanned and digitized by the post office.
All the above freedoms, and so many more, are not only gone they are illegal.
Slippery slopes exist and the government uses them with great competence.
Incorrect. Focus on the argument.
> Slippery slopes exist
Sure. But concluding by arguing their existence is a literal fallacy.
Another slippery slope: food safety. Or our aversion to animal and child cruelty. Compounding social effects that build on themselves. That these exist isn’t disputed. That they exist also doesn’t mean they always manifest. In this case, there is zero evidence of compounding and every one of moderation through iteration. (Contrast Trump’s first efforts with the House’s first bill with what finally passed.)
I am not contesting that the first amendment fails to name TikTok. I’m contesting that the first amendment does not protect your right to own media distribution channels.
We have laws that limit ownership of distribution channels already.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...
Source?
Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2].
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310
[2] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/propaganda-and-the...
> Source?
The first thing that comes to mind is Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC [0], where part of the holding relied on the limited available radio spectrum compared to other publication mediums.
Most of our social media companies can't operate in China at all. Some of the US companies that do operate in China take on part ownership of their Chinese company from the Chinese government. It's unbalanced that we would allow TikTok to operate without more oversight or some US ownership/control.
>It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
>Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has authority to pursue criminal violations. Violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.
[0]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit...