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.
One example cited by the plaintiffs is Jacqueline Vickery, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Arts at the University of North Texas, who studies and teaches how young people use social media for expression and political organizing. “The ban has forced her to suspend research projects and change her research agenda, alter her teaching methodology, and eliminate course materials,” the complaint reads. “It has also undermined her ability to respond to student questions and to review the work of other researchers, including as part of the peer-review process.”
This is literally preventing some profs from doing their jobs properly. There has to be a way to sandbox it to negate the threat while still allowing academic research and teaching.
The ban says they can't install the TikTok app on government-provided devices. I don't see why they can't have the TikTok app on their personal devices. Or if they have to visit it on a government device, why can't they use the web interface.
The ban is on devices and networks, so even if they bring their personal devices to campus or want to use the web that's a no-go.
Eh, no reason they can't use their own data, though. To me, it's not much different than the restrictions from most companies have, where you're not supposed to use company resources for personal business.
They can’t have the university expense a $300 Android device + a vpn to access TikTok? This solves, not having to use a government issued device that access government’s resources and networks, and being protected by using a vpn to create an onion route and preventing potential phone home.
If they cannot work around this, then I legitimately question the quality of “research” they would be conducting here.
If you converted the source code of the tiktok app into a book, and said having that book as a PDF on those devices was prohibited, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, no?
So why should it being a PDF or not matter? Bernstein v. US held that software code is protected under the 1st amendment. https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice
The Bernstein case referred to publishing software source code, which is human-readable and does not come with permissions requirements. A compiled app, coupled with specific permissions requirements for tracking, doesn't fit the fact pattern of the Bernstein case.
Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding the ban but the book isn’t transmitting data is it?
I thought the TikTok ban was based on who has access to the data, not that the data exists.
I’m pretty certain transcribing confidential information into a book and calling it free speech wouldn’t circumvent the laws restricting access to that info.
First you need to have the source code
I'm not a US citizen so I'm not sure how this works, so if I say some stupid shit you can call me out on it, but, is it not a ban only in state devices/networks?
Why is that impeding researches/studies? What is stopping them from just using a personal device on a personal network, or at least a "work" (but still personal) device/network?
I just don't understand that part.
For not being a US citizen you have a better grasp on our free speech laws than the professors suing Texas. First I want to state fuck Greg Abbott. Now with that being said, it's not a violation of free speech for the government to block a website on government devices/networks. There are already a huge number of websites that are blocked. I can understand the arguments against doing it but it's not a violation of free speech just because they don't block Facebook too.
First I want to state fuck Greg Abott.
Woah whats state fucking? Sounds intense.
I'm a USian and state government does in fact have to pay more respect to the first amendment than private businesses.
They have to show some kind of compelling interest that justifies doing something like this. And keep in mind that "state devices" are not just office PCs, but also stuff like Chromebooks distributed to schoolchildren.
I would trust university professors on something like this.
"Government decides how Government resources are governed."
...
Yeah, seems pretty reasonable.
This is one of those situations where I hope everyone loses
Banning an app has nothing to do with free speech protection. That case will most likely be thrown out unless theirs some sneaky clause I'm missing that they are challenging here.
Why does Texas hate free speech and freedom so much?
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
