Replying to Avatar rabble

What’s the real 1st ammendment implications of the proposed TikTok ban / divestment law?

nostr:npub1uuxnz0sq60thc098xfxqst7wnw77l0sm3r8nn48yspuvz4ecprksxdahzv takes an indepth look at the case and it’s implications for free speech on the internet in the US.

nostr:note1s5msfydfl0nz3m44qxgg52jtarnsdjnfzluajflkwh7znkt8w5cq9zm0de

The first amendment gives rights to citizens of the US not foreign controlled companies, right? Yes American citizens are posting on there but that doesn’t mean the company has a right to push their platform. Doesn’t feel like a violation IMHO but I’m not a lawyer 🤷

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It’s a US corporation and the US has lots of laws and treaties that provide equal treatment to American and foreign beneficial owners.

ByteDance is a Chinese company…

Technically it’s a cayman islands company. They operate an HQ in china and lots of the shareholders are Chinese.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ByteDance

That’s an interesting point but in either case they’re not a majority owned US company. The bill of rights doesn’t apply to them in this case.