The Supreme Court Rules Against TikTok–Now What?
lawfaremedia.org
lawfaremedia.org
Outlawing installing a program ("app" being short for "application program") on your computer (even if it is called a "telephone" it is obviously a computer)? Surely there cannot be laws against running whatever program you want on your computer.
Outlawing access of such a program to the Internet? Obviously that cannot be possible, that would be a "Bill of Attainder" (a law against a specific person or group) which is illegal.
Outlawing access to the servers to which that program communicates? Likewise a Bill of Attainder, and illegal.
So what exactly is being done here? No-one is explaining
Why can't there be? Obviously laws against running whatever program you want on your computer already exist.
>Outlawing access of such a program to the Internet? Obviously that cannot be possible, that would be a "Bill of Attainder" (a law against a specific person or group) which is illegal.
"The internet" is neither a person nor a group of people.
>Outlawing access to the servers to which that program communicates? Likewise a Bill of Attainder, and illegal.
"Servers" are neither persons nor groups of people.
Also a bill of attainder is a law intended to punish a person or group of people for crime without due process, which doesn't apply here, as neither "the internet" nor "servers" have been accused of a crime, nor denied due process for conviction of a crime.
>So what exactly is being done here? No-one is explaining
When faced with the two possible options of "everyone involved must be too stupid not to have considered this one obvious and simple solution, despite them being experts in their field" and "this one obvious and simple solution must not mean what I, an amateur think it does," you can safely assume the latter.
As far as explanations, you can read the Supreme Court's decision, you can read any of the multitudinous articles written about the decision, or you can read any of the HN threads discussing it. Explanations abound.
"FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok;…"
How is that not a Bill of Attainder? Although it does not explicitly say that these companies are guilty of a crime, since when is it legal to make a law against a specific person, group of persons, or a specific company? That cannot possibly be Constitutional.
That's one reason why it isn't a Bill of Attainder.
I know you think you've found a silver bullet here but you haven't.
Here's one article explaining in detail why the argument you're putting forth is flawed -- https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/is-the-tiktok-bill...