Yup. And the law as passed literally has TikTok written in it. It is 100% unconstitutional.
It’s also a conflict with previous jurisprudence on corporate first amendment rights. Namely that they have them. If Hobby Lobby can have a religion then TikTok can have political speech. Anything less is hypocrisy.
The TikTok ban law doesn’t actually specifically target TikTok in that way, instead it targets applications owned or controlled by a foreign adversary, of which TikTok is the first one enforcement has been turned against. RedNote or RedBook or whatever it’s called almost certainly is also banned under it, and it’s just a matter of the law being enforced.
TikTok could have gotten out of it by selling or splitting in such a way that US TikTok was not under Chinese control.
Yes, but the courts used some bullshit reasoning to uphold it anyway. They said it didn’t constitute a punishment because the law required a sale rather than a confiscation, and because the company could theoretically re-enter the market with a different app (lol).
I suppose it’s similar to eminent domain where the government can force you to sell your house if it’s in the way of something like a rail line, but it’s not considered a punishment since you’re compensated for it (at whatever price they decide is fair). Basically, the government is allowed to fuck with you quite a bit so long as they can provide a justification for why they’re doing it that isn’t personal.
thank you; that was very informative. I tried to look it up but every article seemed to approach it from the first amendment angle and I didn’t find anything about equal protection.
Not quite. As far as I can tell the US can now play whack-a-mole with any app owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary”, thanks to this precedent. The decision as to which nations are considered a “Foreign Adversary” is made by the U.S. Secretary Of Commerce.
I am not a lawyer or lawmaker, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the full text of the legislation (emphases mine):
DIVISION H-- PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT
Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act
(Sec. 2) This division prohibits distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok). However, the prohibition does not apply to a covered application that executes a qualified divestiture as determined by the President.
Under the division, a foreign adversary controlled application is an application directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd., TikTok, their subsidiaries, successors, related entities they control, or entities controlled by a foreign adversary country; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary country and determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security. (Here, a social media company excludes any website or application primarily used to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.)
For the purposes of this division, a foreign adversary country includes North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
A qualified divestiture is a transaction that the President has determined (through an interagency process)
would result in the relevant foreign adversary controlled application no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary, and
precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the U.S. operations of the relevant application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary (including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or a data-sharing agreement).
The prohibition applies 270 days after the date of the division’s enactment. The division authorizes the President to grant a one-time extension of up to 90 days to a covered application when the President has certified to Congress that (1) a path to executing a qualified divestiture of the covered application has been identified, (2) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture of the covered application has been produced, and (3) relevant legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension are in place.
Additionally, the division requires a covered foreign adversary controlled application to provide a user with all available account data (including posts, photos, and videos) at the user’s request before the prohibition takes effect. The account data must be provided in a machine-readable format.
The division authorizes the Department of Justice to investigate violations and enforce its provisions. Entities that that violate the division are subject to civil penalties for violations. An entity that violates the prohibition on distributing, maintaining, updating, or providing internet hosting services for a covered application is subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 multiplied by the number of U.S. users who have accessed, maintained, or updated the application as a result of the violation. An entity that violates the requirement to provide account data to a user upon request is subject to a maximum penalty of $500 multiplied by the number of U.S. users impacted by the violation.
(Sec. 3) The division gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the division. A challenge to the division must be brought within 165 days after the division’s enactment date. A challenge to any action, finding, or determination under the division must be brought with 90 days of the action, finding, or determination.
DIVISION I–PROTECTING AMERICANS’ DATA FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024
Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act of 2024
This division makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals who reside in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran or an entity controlled by such a country (e.g., headquartered in or owned by a person in the country).
Sensitive data includes government-issued identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers), financial account numbers, biometric information, genetic information, precise geolocation information, and private communications (e.g., texts or emails).
A data broker generally includes an entity that sells or otherwise provides data of individuals that the entity did not collect directly from the individuals. A data broker does not include an entity that transmits an individual’s data or communications at the request or direction of the individual or an entity that makes news or information available to the general public.
The division provides for enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Would Rednote or whatever it’s called also be covered by the same ban?
no. the ban is not against chinese apps, its against tiktok specifically.
isn’t it unconstitutional to target specific entities with laws?
Idk if the Constitution enters into it when the company in question is not American.
it’s called the law of the land, not the law of the people. if laws don’t cover non-american entities then they can’t commit crimes.
Laws do cover non-american entities, but non-american entities are not afforded the same protections as citizens / corporations, it would appear.
Yup. And the law as passed literally has TikTok written in it. It is 100% unconstitutional.
It’s also a conflict with previous jurisprudence on corporate first amendment rights. Namely that they have them. If Hobby Lobby can have a religion then TikTok can have political speech. Anything less is hypocrisy.
The TikTok ban law doesn’t actually specifically target TikTok in that way, instead it targets applications owned or controlled by a foreign adversary, of which TikTok is the first one enforcement has been turned against. RedNote or RedBook or whatever it’s called almost certainly is also banned under it, and it’s just a matter of the law being enforced.
TikTok could have gotten out of it by selling or splitting in such a way that US TikTok was not under Chinese control.
Yes, but the courts used some bullshit reasoning to uphold it anyway. They said it didn’t constitute a punishment because the law required a sale rather than a confiscation, and because the company could theoretically re-enter the market with a different app (lol).
I suppose it’s similar to eminent domain where the government can force you to sell your house if it’s in the way of something like a rail line, but it’s not considered a punishment since you’re compensated for it (at whatever price they decide is fair). Basically, the government is allowed to fuck with you quite a bit so long as they can provide a justification for why they’re doing it that isn’t personal.
thank you; that was very informative. I tried to look it up but every article seemed to approach it from the first amendment angle and I didn’t find anything about equal protection.
The phrase you’re looking for for a law that targets a specific entity is “Bill of Attainder.”
This was my source for the info, that includes the text of the court ruling.
awesome, thanks!
Not quite. As far as I can tell the US can now play whack-a-mole with any app owned or controlled by a “foreign adversary”, thanks to this precedent. The decision as to which nations are considered a “Foreign Adversary” is made by the U.S. Secretary Of Commerce.
I am not a lawyer or lawmaker, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Here’s the full text of the legislation (emphases mine):