The prohibition is not on speech. It’s on installing a specific piece of software on government-issued devices, when the government has determined that software is a security & privacy threat.
The professors could legally use a third-party client app (if one exists) to connect to the service.
It’s some silly videos, who determined it a threat?
The American government.
The claim seems to be that it’s not the videos; it’s the installing a piece of software that grants a foreign dictatorship access to monitor Texas government employees.
It appears that the TikTok service currently requires, as a term of service, that the user consent to be monitored and tracked by a corporation ultimately controlled by the China government. That is something that the state of Texas and the US government appear to believe they have good reason to prevent on devices used for work by government employees.
In any event, it’s very much not clear that “you may not install this specific piece of software on a government device” is a speech restriction.
I’ve been telling everything that Google and META are threats but nobody listens to me.
Oh, you were referring to TikTok.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
or business interests.
According to the Supreme Court, businesses have human rights, are you defending the violation of human rights?
How the turn tables.
foreign governments or business interests.
Obviously meaning foreign governments or foreign business interests. Not sure how you misunderstood that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’ve been sounding alarms for 10 years now.
