this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
266 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
60566 readers
3639 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most of them[1] know a whole lot more about constitutional law than the average lemming.
When things are working correctly, the Supreme Court's role is usually not very concerned with the facts of the case; its role is to resolve questions of law. Congress considered the facts including some classified briefings, decided that American app stores should be forbidden from distributing TikTok to American users, and made a law. The court was asked whether Congress has the authority to make laws like that, and the court decided that it does.
[1] Maybe not Clarence Thomas
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That's the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
This is correct, but the law doesn't do that. It mentions TikTok in the title, but the text describes what is banned in terms of user count and control by a foreign adversary. It would apply to a future product made by a Russian company, for example.
No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.
If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.
I missed that part. Thanks for the correction.
Looking at the court's opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it's unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that's a question for people who know more about law than I do.
A forced sale below market value is absolutely punishment. And being banned is 100% punitive.