Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Abigail Joy's avatar

The thing that baffled me most was that nobody asked the very simple question: how is this supposed "foreign influence" an actual THREAT? "Threat" means something harmful. *Hearing words* isn't going to hurt anyone, even if these words are "anti-American" or whatever. We should have a much higher standard for what "threat" actually means.

I wanted someone, anyone, to break down exactly what was supposed to happen, and how China was supposedly going to harm Americans via a silly video app. Who's supposedly going to die? Who's going to get hurt? Such an obvious question, but nobody asked it.

This whole thing is so dumb.

Expand full comment
Matt Stoller's avatar

"In other words, the Court is saying national security is above its pay grade. "

The Supreme Court doesn't strike down laws because they are stupid of bad, only if they are un-Constitutional. Or at least that's their supposed role.

The court said that Congress made a reasonable claim on national security, not necessarily an accurate one. They refused to consider secret evidence that TikTok's lawyers couldn't see. And they also noted that even TikTok's lawyers "do not dispute that the Government has an important and well-grounded interest in preventing China from collecting the personal data of tens of millions of U. S. TikTok users."

The question before the court is whether the law is Constitutional, not whether it's good policy. The court said it's constitutional because foreign corporations do not have free speech rights, and regulations of corporate ownership that have content-neutral impacts on speech have less protection under the First Amendment. They basically said 'this is Congress regulating a microphone, not what someone says into that microphone.'

And a reasonable articulation of national security interests is enough, just as any other state interest might be enough. The alternative is to create a Constitutional prohibition against regulating most tech firms or foreign speech in U.S. elections.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to make policy, it's supposed to determine what the law is. Blame Congress for a law you don't like, don't demand the court further extend the Citizens United-style caselaw.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts