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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.
If blocking a website on government devices/networks is a violation of free speech why are you just now sounding the alarm? Why didn’t you sound the alarm when I wasn’t allowed to browse reddit on my government laptop? The government blocking access on personal devices/networks is a violation, blocking access on government networks/devices is business as usual.
It has long been recognized that freedom of speech is not unlimited, and I really hope you’re not trying to argue that TikTok is press.
The key line here is “abridging the freedom of speech”
I don’t like TikTok. I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories. However, I think it’s an equally dangerous step to let the government decide to limit or remove access to a foreign social media site. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.
I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories
This is unrelated but I laughed.
This is a perfect description of Great Old Party.
Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.
Or any other foreign entity. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written to protect foreign governments or business interests.
or business interests.
According to the Supreme Court, businesses have human rights, are you defending the violation of human rights?
How the turn tables.
foreign governments or business interests.
Obviously meaning foreign governments or foreign business interests. Not sure how you misunderstood that.
I see, the USA should work on banning Toyota, Samsung, Siemens, Nestle and etc.
Actually, just banning Nestlé for their slavery practices in Africa would be good enough.
100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.
But do you at least understand how the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to this conversation at all now?
100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.
Make it United Nations labor regulations and we’re set for a good time, comrade.
Sure, that sounds good and all but do you understand the UN doesn’t have any legal power over its member nations? I’m interested in realistic, enforceable legal outcomes, not utopian dreams.
Your idealism is fun, but you really need to read more and travel some to start peeling off that thick layer of naivety.
