248
submitted 6 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 63 points 6 months ago

Huh. Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but the basic premise seems solid. US has that whole 'corporations are people' shtick going on, and... well, guess now it's time for that ruling to become inconvenient for the government.

[-] mattw3496@kbin.social 29 points 6 months ago

Exactly. I don't care about tiktok (I'm more concerned with the parts of this legislation) but this'll be interesting. The bad news is that if tiktok wins this, other corporations will definitely start up with some new shenanigans

[-] subignition@fedia.io 12 points 6 months ago

It won't happen, but imagine how satisfying it would be if TikTok was the domino that led to Citizens United being overturned

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Although it would be funnier if it went the other direction and corporate personhood was so fundamental that the 14th amendment applied to them meaning they couldn't be owned by shareholders as that would be slavery.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

I mean, I don't know if I would say "interesting turn of events" per se. This was entirely expected, to the point where every major news outlet was reporting on the day the ban was announced that TikTok was likely to contest it in court.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago

I don’t think the contesting it in court part is what surprised anyone.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 4 points 6 months ago

I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but the basic premise seems solid. US has that whole ‘corporations are people’ shtick going on

Sure, and the US Government is quite able to ban people from the country as well.

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago

Not really, this was always coming. Any time new regulations effect a corporation, they sue. Sometimes it's just to establish a more reasonable timeframe to make the necessary changes to stay in regulation, sometimes it's to upturn the entire law. This was pretty much always Step 2. What's real interesting is TikTok's refusal to sell, which tells me that they think they have a very solid court case.

[-] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 4 points 6 months ago

Corporations are only people when it comes to rights they can abuse.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

If TikTok winning this means we treat corporations more like people, does that mean we can start charging them with murder and suing them when they infringe on our rights?

[-] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I'm ready to see Texas execute a few corporations.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

But freedom of speech is an US right, how does banning a Chinese company even if they are a person violate free speech? They would be a Chinese citizen with the rights given in their country so no free speech. Just don't get the play they are trying to make here.

[-] match@pawb.social 8 points 6 months ago

They are legally based in the Caymans, if rights don't apply to them because of it then that applies to all the multinational companies (Nestle etc)

[-] Rottcodd@kbin.social -2 points 6 months ago

TikTok doesn't engage in speech at all. TikTok is s platform on which people engage in speech. Those people include Americans.

So TikTok being legally considered a person or not, having rights or not and so on is irrelevant, since TikTok's nominal rights aren't being violated in the first place. The rights of the Anerican people are the ones that would be violated - they are the ones whose freedom of speech would be restricted.

IANAL but I presume that's the argument they're using - that when they say that it's a violation of the first amendment, what they mean is not that it violates their supposed freedom of speech, but that it violates our inalienable freedom of speech (as it in fact, and obviously, does).

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I think TikTok has a case here, but I don't think that angle is it. Otherwise, any business blocked by the US due to alleged crimes/embargoes/refusing to meet regulations can claim it is a violation of their right to free speech if they so much as maintain a website, notice board, or wall that Americans can stick flyers onto.

Any legal visitors/businesses/organizations etc. from abroad that enter or work in the United States are still protected by the bill of rights, so TikTok can claim this as a personal infringement despite being incorporated abroad.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

It’s interesting because technically the content on TikTok is the speech of the users and TikTok is just processing it. It’s not actually their “speech”. Does that mean anything? Are they considered press? Same thing. It’s the content of the users.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 7 points 6 months ago

Don't they make you sign some EULA that states something along the lines of "everything you submit becomes our property" like all the rest do?

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Oh right. Probably

this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
248 points (94.0% liked)

News

23275 readers
3499 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS