I agree that having some baseline limits to data sharing would be a much more principled approach here!
It may sound oxymoronic that for a law to provide "freedom" to people it must also encumber that freedom with restrictions in order to actually provide the freedom it is trying to provide, but that is the simple truth of it.
Otherwise the law would have to power to enforce any law it passed.
With that being said, the exceptions are actually quite reasonable.
The "No shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" laws still apply (i.e., it would still be a crime to create and publish a fake bomb threat even if it were intended as a joke if there is any chance whatsoever that any partially reasonable person would possibly take it seriously), as well as common sense laws like, nothing involving underage people being nude (or worse) or not publishing private nude videos without the subject's consent, things like that.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that…
> "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Utterly unsurprised to find it was WW1 time-period constraint, as I'm reading the utterly fabulous American Midnight about how the USG built a huge surveillance network & vigilante groups to destroy labor, human-rights, socialistic causes, and anyone not signing up for an incredibly propogandized Big Business lead war.
So... Is TikTok creating incitement of illegal acts? What other clear standards might apply to curb citizens use of this medium? Keeps smellingike horseshit to me.
Or that they'd give the auditors the real system to inspect, not a dummy with the "spy" and "propaganda" plugins removed?
The first amendment isn't a law that says "these people have freedom of speech".
Instead the law is written such that it's a restriction placed upon the legislature.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
It doesn't indicate whose freedom of speech cannot be abridged by congress, so (barring any overriding jurisprudence or "original intent" I'm unaware of), this therefor apparently refers to the freedom of speech of everyone... everywhere. (I feel compelled to point out that I do not have a law degree of any kind)
Later amendments draw a clearer and more deliberate distinction between who the law is targeted at.
For example, in the 14th Amendment, it states in the first clause:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's still a law designed to restrict the power of government. However, "any person" is a clearly and deliberately defined category of people that's different from "citizens of the United States" (a phrase which was used in the same section). It's therefor clear that this protection is meant to cover non-citizens as well.
But I don’t know whether the founders would have considered the actions of foreign-government-controlled-corporations as ‘speech’, which they wanted to enjoin their government from being able to pass laws to restrict.
Instead we get this sort of national-security justification, which can be applied arbitrarily and leaves everyone uncertain about what the limits actually are.