Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law, it's unclear whether third-party internet service providers will support the app.
Nothing. The arguments were public. They obliterated the first amendment rights of 170 million Americans because the government said National Security. If the government can use magic words to make your rights disappear, then you don’t have those rights.
Nothing to do with the data collection, the court was ruling on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act’s constitutionality.
There’s a history of the US putting people in prison too. It’s still unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring someone to go to prison just because the law they passed named them.
Wasn’t claiming it was a good or bad call, just that the Supreme Court is about legality and there is history of the US banning software and a global history of banning this specific app.
Most of them[1] know a whole lot more about constitutional law than the average lemming.
When things are working correctly, the Supreme Court’s role is usually not very concerned with the facts of the case; its role is to resolve questions of law. Congress considered the facts including some classified briefings, decided that American app stores should be forbidden from distributing TikTok to American users, and made a law. The court was asked whether Congress has the authority to make laws like that, and the court decided that it does.
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That’s the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
Unanimous?! Makes you wonder what they know that we might not.
Nothing. The arguments were public. They obliterated the first amendment rights of 170 million Americans because the government said National Security. If the government can use magic words to make your rights disappear, then you don’t have those rights.
Nothing to do with the data collection, the court was ruling on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act’s constitutionality.
They absolutely made data collection part of their opinion.
Imagine believing these wacky old farts know anything at all about the internet.
I think it’s more there is a precedence of the government blocking software they think is a threat - https://cmmcinfo.org/list-of-hardware-software-and-services-banned-by-us-government/
We give the government a lot of leeway when it comes to “national security”
Also, we’re not the first country to ban it - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/heres-what-happened-when-india-banned-tiktok
There’s a history of the US putting people in prison too. It’s still unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring someone to go to prison just because the law they passed named them.
Ah yes boldly following in the liberatory footsteps of India.
Wasn’t claiming it was a good or bad call, just that the Supreme Court is about legality and there is history of the US banning software and a global history of banning this specific app.
Most of them[1] know a whole lot more about constitutional law than the average lemming.
When things are working correctly, the Supreme Court’s role is usually not very concerned with the facts of the case; its role is to resolve questions of law. Congress considered the facts including some classified briefings, decided that American app stores should be forbidden from distributing TikTok to American users, and made a law. The court was asked whether Congress has the authority to make laws like that, and the court decided that it does.
[1] Maybe not Clarence Thomas
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That’s the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.