lol even Jackson is arguing against this, this is about to be a 7-0 decision RIP
Also damn Supreme Court justices can be stupid, never knew
You should check out the 5-4 podcast if you’d like to know more about how incredibly stupid SC justices can be. They go through a decision in each episode and tear it apart, it seems a lot of justices make 1L student level mistakes in their reasoning and writing pretty regularly.
Oh I’m well familiar with 5-4, great show
okay but have you listened to ALAB? also did some amazing takedowns of the federal judiciary
Every episode, multiple times, I understand their episodes take time and research but goddamn do they not release often
their two-parter on Dershowitz was physically uncomfortable, that man is a demon
Gonna make me relisten now, fuck that dude
thought about jump scaring you with the dershowitz emote but I can’t do that to you comrade
They’re like Ben Carson. Highly specialized in their education. But that doesn’t mean they’re geniuses. And can very much be the opposite despite the prestige.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision in the year of our lord 2025 would somehow be the least expected thing to happen this year.
Why not, let’s start off with a bang
The difference in interrogation between the SG and the TikTok attorney is wild
would you mind elaborating for those of us not up for bunch of C-SPAN?
Reading the other comments here is probably better, I was dropping in and out and just kept hearing “COMMUNIST China is taking our datas,” but apparently the justices actually were decently skeptical of the secretary general
Kagan mentioning CPUSA as a comparison by theorizing a bill that would force the CPUSA to “divest” from the Comintern lel.
No idea what her angle is there, but she’s asking the question to the solicitor general who is defending the ban.
Solicitor: This [violation of freedom of speech] was passed with a broad bipartisan consensus. Our legislators rarely agree so we should just let them do it.
Edit:
Solicitor: “the PRC might make false flag anti-China content” lmao what?
Also the solicitor is trying to argue that the ban isn’t content based (aka definitely a 1st amendment violation) while frequently mentioning supposed or theoretical content manipulation by China. The Justices don’t seem to be buying it.
“This law isn’t regulating the US users in any way.”
It’s literally banning a widely used platform of speech for them.
KJB: “Isn’t the point that the content of TikTok would change under a new owner?”
Sotomayor: “How is the post-divestiture provision about the algorithm not a speech impediment?”
Yeah, the Justices don’t really seem to be buying it.
Kagan literally saying “wait but what about the communists 1950s?” but like on the side of the red scare?
(But I just started watching so I may be missing context)
Thank you for posting this
Oh geez I meant the OP, thanks to them for sharing the link.
“The FOREIGN ADVERSARY™ is trying to steal our data!” always confuses the absolute hell out of me. Like, of course they are? Every country spies on every other country as hard as it fucking can. And itself for that matter. Is this not obvious?
Well yeah, which is why they Edit: claim to want to ban TikTok to make it harder to get that data
They want to ban tiktok because they want to maintain propagandic control over the populace.
Mistyped, *which is why the government argues that they want to ban TikTok to make it harder to get that data. They are using the data natsec argument as a cover obviously
Sorry, my response to you was stated tersely and comes across as confrontational now that I see it onscreen, not the intent
No worries, we’re on the same page about the intent of the case
Trying to put form to the train of thought running in my head:
The US needs to ban tiktok because it is a popular media outlet that is outside of their propaganda sphere.
The US can’t say that’s why they want to ban it, because that’s very literally a free speech thing. They still can and will curtail speech, but they’re trying to figure out a way to not blatantly look like they’re doing it.
So they’re on this big data privacy national security thing. But it feels to me like it’s not an argument that any of them can (or at least should) genuinely believe. Hearing the argument being made sends my head spinning.
Good wholesome Country A wants to spy on evil unknowable Country B. A forces A’s companies to build in backdoors for A’s spies to use. B buys A’s products. A spies on B. B knows they’re being spied on, figures out how, and starts spying on A because A also uses A’s products. A knows this, but accepts it as the cost of doing business and keeps telling companies to include backdoors.
US and China: How Chinese Spies Got the N.S.A.’s Hacking Tools, and Used Them for Attacks
Chinese cyber association calls for review of Intel products sold in China
China and US: US finds Huawei has backdoor access to mobile networks globally, report says
But this applies to any combination of countries. It’s just the way things are done! No country needs someone to have their fun video app installed to get at that person’s data. Why can’t they all just admit that it’s a propaganda war publicly? No one will give a shit.
We’ve tikked our last tok 😔
This is gonna turn the 9-13yos making dandy’s world animatics in flipaclip into the American equivalent of the generation of Romanian orphans born after its abortion ban
It’s insane to compare Romanian policy on abortion to their neighbour’s, Hungary’s at the time. They had polar opposite policy and nowadays Hungary is the one restricting abortions.
Uh, that’s somethin’
Wonder which side will pay more for the corrupt judgement
i’m keeping my fingers crossed that trumps nouveau riche oligarchy prompted alito and/or thomas to their side.
what does the C in C-SPAN stand for, and why is it Capital
Whoever pays the band picks the music
THANK YOU!!!
i was agonizing about having to wait for this behind paywalls
@[email protected] @[email protected]@[email protected] yall are saying the justices are going to overturn this law, right? why the hell are CBS and the New YorKKK CrimeSS claiming the opposite???
I definitely think the justices were wrecking the US’s arguments. I do not assume that the decision will reflect that. They are the state and will carry out the will of the state, whatever that will may be.
It is all a very careful legal dance to make sure that they banning TikTok for the right reason.
Also, I only started listening after the TikTok lawyer was done, so I missed anything they said to him.
the tiktok lawyer sucked in my opinion.
his rebuttal made me facepalm
he had nothing on the national security argument, for a variety of reasons, except the foreign registration act; which i think goes to show how America has handled (poorly, some would say) foreign influence. The fun fact about half the national security arguments being redacted is cringeworthy. And the data argument goes for just about every goddamn company that runs a website with ads, let alone a social platform.
ah i see
So is the tiktok ban going through?
Ok so the general vibe was the us solicitor general saying “the ban is constitutional because FOREIGN ADVERSARY™ bad”, the justices (yes even that one (whichever one you’re thinking of)) saying “that doesn’t sound all that different from what any american app company has access to”, and the TikTok lawyer saying “y’all are scared about propaganda but can’t admit that you don’t like
”Watching the United states’ neoliberal hivemind trying to synthesize the thoughts “free speech good” “corporations good” “China bad” is actually rather entertaining
I’ve only been listening for a few minutes, but it doesn’t seem likely at all based on the dialogue.
No way this is going to pass. Comrade Trump has made it clear that he’s not going to let it happen.
the TikTok will CONTINUE !!!
Heck, I’m throwing this on https://live.hexbear.net/c/news nowAdjourned until Monday
Such an insane hearing. It really is about The Algorithm and sp00ky FOREIGN ADVERSARY CHINA.
Crazy times we’re living in.
1:36 has some US govt person doing the anti-China tirade.
At 1:02 (a little earlier than 1:02) they’ve got attourney Jeffry Fisher representing TikTok content creator Brian Firebaugh who’s apparently some Texas cattle racher lol https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/technology/2024/05/15/487532/this-texas-cattle-rancher-is-suing-the-u-s-government-after-a-new-law-that-could-ban-tiktok/
Brian Firebaugh, the owner of a ranch near Waco, is one of eight TikTok creators that are part of a federal lawsuit filed after President Joe Biden signed a law last month that bans TikTok in the U.S. unless it’s sold within a year.
