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.
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!