throwaway199956

But there is no restriction on American listeners tuning in to foreign radio stations.

Americans are free to read foreign books, watch foreign news, browse foreign websites.

Even it looks like they will be within weeks launching a second lunar sample return mission.

Yes, but you think that possibility of government oversight/monitoring is an inherent necessity for government permitting any kind of media to operate in the US?

If doesn't work in many cases anyway, Government has no way to track who is tuning in and listening to hostile radio broadcasts.

Even it might be hostile propaganda, First ammendment protects both publishing and consuming content, without any "national security" considerations. But US lawmakers are now seemingly keen to introduce such conditions in the publishing and consuming of content.

During the cold war it was perfectly legal for the Soviet Life magazine to be published in the US and for people to buy and read it.

First ammendment really does say that "Congress shall make no law .." without any caveats for national security or even war-time exemptions.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the SCOTUS.

Listening to foreign radio stations on shortwave and listening their propaganda is also not illegal in the US.

Doesn't first ammendment protect even that. Propaganda of other countries are legal under first ammendment.

Why should we be a nanny state that should dictate which apps one can or cannot use on one's device.

Also even at the hight of cold war, Soviet Life magazine was published and disseminated widely in the US.

On several occasions, it did appear as if Nepomniachtchi had good chance to win the Championship, however it went to tie-breaks, and in the last match of the time break, Ding managed to win with black.

Any idea of high res images from Tianwen-1, as per reports they have imaged most of Mars surface, and being a more recent mission, may have better camera.

Does it apply to consumer equipment like phones, tablets and smart watches?

Cisco and Huawei can be subject to same set of regulations aginst having backdoors etc. But instead of general regulations and measures, what is promulgated is merely action against 2 particular firms, that is a targeted/particular regulation.

Weather such targetted/discriminatory regulation as opposed to universal regulation is a legal action is a valid question.

This particular law seems to give grant too much discretionary powers to the Executive, which never is a good idea.