• Raphael@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has long been recognized that freedom of speech is not unlimited, and I really hope you’re not trying to argue that TikTok is press.

      • riverjig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh. People are trying. I recently, will add briefly, watched a documentary on the Titanic where they had a guy from TT stating facts because his authority is that he’s “The Titanic guy”. Turned it off seconds after I stopped laughing.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The key line here is “abridging the freedom of speech”

        I don’t like TikTok. I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories. However, I think it’s an equally dangerous step to let the government decide to limit or remove access to a foreign social media site. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.

        • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.

          That precedent is well established.

        • athos77@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re not limiting access. They’re saying you can’t install the application on a government-supplied device. Want TikTok on your personal phone - great, go ahead! Want to watch TikTok in a browser on your government device - hey, that’s fine! Install a piece of software that’s really aggressive in the data it collects on a government device - nope!

        • Raphael@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories

          This is unrelated but I laughed.

          This is a perfect description of Great Old Party.

        • Raphael@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories.

          Now for a serious post, I’ll gladly sacrifice TikTok and a goat if that’s it takes to kill Google, META and the others.

    • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.

      Or any other foreign entity. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written to protect foreign governments or business interests.

      • Raphael@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        or business interests.

        According to the Supreme Court, businesses have human rights, are you defending the violation of human rights?

        How the turn tables.

        • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          foreign governments or business interests.

          Obviously meaning foreign governments or foreign business interests. Not sure how you misunderstood that.

          • Raphael@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see, the USA should work on banning Toyota, Samsung, Siemens, Nestle and etc.

            Actually, just banning Nestlé for their slavery practices in Africa would be good enough.

            • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.

              But do you at least understand how the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to this conversation at all now?

              • Raphael@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.

                Make it United Nations labor regulations and we’re set for a good time, comrade.

                • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, that sounds good and all but do you understand the UN doesn’t have any legal power over its member nations? I’m interested in realistic, enforceable legal outcomes, not utopian dreams.

                  Your idealism is fun, but you really need to read more and travel some to start peeling off that thick layer of naivety.

                  • Raphael@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sadly there’s a good chance Trump will win and implement the GOP’s project of Child Labor in the US.

                    I’m interested in realistic, enforceable legal outcomes, not utopian dreams.

                    America already follows many international regulations and applies them with the rule of the law.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tiktok is not the sole method for speech, and it is not a slippery slope to ban all similar methods of speech.

      The reason for not allowing it is that tiktok is malware. Should malware with a political message be required to be installed on government computers?

    • zaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If blocking a website on government devices/networks is a violation of free speech why are you just now sounding the alarm? Why didn’t you sound the alarm when I wasn’t allowed to browse reddit on my government laptop? The government blocking access on personal devices/networks is a violation, blocking access on government networks/devices is business as usual.

    • Trebach@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they were forbidden from installing the app on their personal devices, I’d agree with you. However, the ban is on installing it on government devices, so it’s their right to make that rule.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, if they really have to watch TikTok on government provided devices, they can watch through Firefox or Chrome or Safari. I’m not seeing any issue at all here.