Do you want the Supreme Court to let Congress & Biden ban Tik-Tok?
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
The courts have recognized social media platforms as modern public squares for speech, suggesting that a ban could infringe on users' rights to speak, share, and receive information.
The Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina reinforced that social media is an integral part of modern communication, thus protected under the First Amendment.
The government hasn't demonstrated that the ban is the least restrictive means to address security concerns, which is a requirement under strict scrutiny for laws impacting speech.
Previous attempts to ban TikTok, like those under the Felon administration, were challenged on First Amendment grounds and were blocked by courts citing violations of free speech rights.
The current legislation, which attempts to force ByteDance to divest or face a ban, is a form of content regulation.
Social media bans have been implemented or proposed around the world.
Known for its extensive internet censorship, China bans many Western social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The government's control over internet content is part of its broader strategy to manage information flow and maintain political stability.
Iran has restricted access to platforms like X, Instagram, and Telegram, especially during times of political unrest. This is often justified under the guise of national security and to prevent the spread of "Western cultural influence."
After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has intensified its control over social media, banning platforms like X and Instagram. This was part of a broader move to control narratives and prevent dissent or foreign influence.
Social media is essentially non-existent for the general public due to the North Korea's extreme isolation and control over information. Only a select few with government approval have access to the internet or social media.
Pakistan has intermittently blocked social media platforms like X and YouTube in response to blasphemous content or during political unrest.
@Grok
The Supreme Court case Packingham v. North Carolina reinforced that social media is an integral part of modern communication, thus protected under the First Amendment.
The government hasn't demonstrated that the ban is the least restrictive means to address security concerns, which is a requirement under strict scrutiny for laws impacting speech.
Previous attempts to ban TikTok, like those under the Felon administration, were challenged on First Amendment grounds and were blocked by courts citing violations of free speech rights.
The current legislation, which attempts to force ByteDance to divest or face a ban, is a form of content regulation.
Social media bans have been implemented or proposed around the world.
Known for its extensive internet censorship, China bans many Western social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The government's control over internet content is part of its broader strategy to manage information flow and maintain political stability.
Iran has restricted access to platforms like X, Instagram, and Telegram, especially during times of political unrest. This is often justified under the guise of national security and to prevent the spread of "Western cultural influence."
After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has intensified its control over social media, banning platforms like X and Instagram. This was part of a broader move to control narratives and prevent dissent or foreign influence.
Social media is essentially non-existent for the general public due to the North Korea's extreme isolation and control over information. Only a select few with government approval have access to the internet or social media.
Pakistan has intermittently blocked social media platforms like X and YouTube in response to blasphemous content or during political unrest.
@Grok
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I would have no problem with abolishing all of the current digital social media platforms.
They are mainly petri dishes for ignorance.
Print was always the ultimate medium for critical thinkers,
and now that it has receded so drastically,
human intelligence is waning at a frightening pace.
They are mainly petri dishes for ignorance.
Print was always the ultimate medium for critical thinkers,
and now that it has receded so drastically,
human intelligence is waning at a frightening pace.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
You do realize that you are displaying your ignorance on a social media platform right now, don't you?
Are you aware of the import of the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
"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."
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I perfectly understand the constitutional reasons to protect digital media.
Not being a particularly huge fan of our Constitution, however,
I still support the dismantling of social media platforms.
I'm simply stating my preferences,
and they're soundly based on a disdain for encouraging stupidity.
One would have to be a complete idiot to not see how digital media have dumbed down America.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'm here indeed,And here you are.
but I'm not a manifestation of the ignorant majority
created by populism, anti-elitism, and digital media.