Posted on 04/24/2024 12:00:06 PM PDT by RandFan
Re: 39 - Well, the thought by some is that because they believe the US spies on some US citizens (which I believe to be correct for several scenarios), that ALL companies that “spy” on US citizens be allowed to do so.
Do I have that correct? Please correct if wrong.
Desert Rhino did an excellent job last night.
In essence it seems FB and GOOG are losing to Tik Tok over an algo.
Stuff like that happens when the tech companies are 85% social activists. Musk exposed it. Cheap as can be money helped fuel it. Their censorship created massive opportunity. We end up with the perfect storm.
You talking about the Chinese or American government.
With the Chinese government, you don’t get any choice.
With the American government, there may be choices, but, the constitution is still there offering many protections. What protections are available with the Chinese government?
See my 43.
You have FReepers that support PRC/CCP affiliated companies being able to access data of American TikTok users.
Interesting times for sure.
Foreign government agencies cannot sue the USA for freedom of speech
I’m just calling out the hypocrisy of a government that authorizes warrantless spying on it’s own citizens but tries to ban other countries from doing the same thing.
I bet Tiktok won’t be the only company forced to divest if this is found to be constitutional.
I think tik tok should be spun off to an American (freedom loving) company such as RUMBLE/DJT!
Smithfield! The largest in the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really, how about the chinese made components in phones? Banned? I suspect if they wanted to use social media for spying on someone they can just use publically available data from the top 100 social media apps on any app store. I think bans are ahort sighted “wins” at best.
Wow! Did not know that!
Influence in what way?
Congress didn’t ban speech they banned the importation of a product.
They don’t have a monopoly, and they won’t have a monopoly.
In whatever way suit their purpose. Including but not limited to election of politicians who are spies for them.
We’ll see. Xi is very much spoiled brat. He doesn’t care about money because he essentially owns all of China. He will cut of his nose to spite his face.
Hey, I'm noTikTok fan, but FREEDOM of SPEECH is infinitely more important than my "feelings" about it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A Chinese business is citing the First Amendment?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - The Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. This could potentially allow the government to regulate a company's ability to operate an app that has interstate or international commerce implications.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 - The Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the authority to enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce. This could provide a constitutional basis for the government to mandate the sale of an app.
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Takings Clause - These clauses could limit the government's ability to force a company to sell an app without just compensation or due process of law. There have been court cases that have ruled on the government's ability to seize or compel the sale of private property.
Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the government's power to regulate and even require the sale of private property in certain circumstances, such as when it is necessary for national security or public welfare. However, the government must still provide due process and just compensation. The specific circumstances and legal justification would need to be examined in each case.
The Supreme Court has issued several key rulings related to the government's power to regulate private property and compel the sale of assets:
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate even a farmer's personal wheat production, as it could impact interstate wheat markets. This established a broad interpretation of the government's commerce power.
In United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), the Court affirmed Congress's ability to prohibit the shipment of "filled milk" in interstate commerce, citing the Necessary and Proper Clause as a basis for the government's regulatory authority. This case further solidified the expansive reading of federal commerce power.
On the other hand, in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), the Court ruled that a city's landmark preservation law requiring Penn Central to maintain its terminal building was a regulatory taking that required just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. This case recognized limits on the government's power over private property.
Additionally, in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Court upheld the city's use of eminent domain to condemn private homes for economic development, sparking controversy over the scope of the Takings Clause. This decision underscored the complex balance between government authority and private property rights.
These landmark cases demonstrate the Supreme Court's efforts to delineate the boundaries of the federal government's constitutional powers to regulate and control private assets, while also protecting individual property rights.
hehe well Both are notorious spies on their citizens the Chinese are just open about it. But it’s the US that puts in secret back doors
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.