Some people like to express themselves via posting videos to tiktok. If the government bans tiktok, these people are no longer able to express themselves in this manner, i.e. their freedom of speech has been limited.

Likewise, as a consumer of content, you no longer have access to the opinions posted to tiktok if it is banned. This may limit your ability to be exposed to certain ideas.

Should I be allowed to express myself by firing bullets into the air?

Is it abridging my free speech when the city I live in bans billboards? I can no long speak by building a billboard on my land.

I can post/view short videos to Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, among others. I don't see how any one platform embodies my ability to speak.

I am not sure. Billboards are mostly used for ads, so that seems less relevant from a freedom of speech view. But if billboards were systematically used to share political ideas and criticize the government, and as a response the government decided to ban them, that may be an issue.

It is also notable that the other firms you mention are American, and thus may embody a certain viewpoint and culture.

I picked some that are popular in the US because they're alternatives to TikTok.

I find it hard to believe that a single medium like billboards or an app like TikTok is such a unique thing that it's a burden on people to communicate without them.

I see your point. But I do not think the burden to use alternatives matter - the fact is that people are using tiktok to express themselves in a protected manner, which means that restricting it is a free speech issue. Further, the tools and moderation policies of tiktok are different enough that there may not be a viable alternative to discuss certain ideas in certain ways.

Otherwise, one might argue that the government can ban specific newspapers as there are other newspapers where journalists can publish, or that the government can cab paper newspapers since people can publish online.

Remove emotional bait from the conversation and it makes even more sense:

Can the government ban harmful foreign products?

> Is it abridging my free speech when the city I live in bans billboards?

I think so. That is something that is actively being discussed. One could make the argument for that and bring it to court.

Why are you okay with the government preventing you from putting a sign up on your property?

I don't really care about billboards, but they are already banned by states and municipalities.

> I don't really care

That tracks.

> they are already banned by states and municipalities.

Which means nothing to your argument in support of the government denying you your first amendment rights.

I've actually gotten a decent number of responses and yours is the only insult so far. Not too shabby for the internet.

The law is heavily based on precedent. Seems like a big difference between speech and a specific communication mechanism.

If you offer what you care about as a subject for discussion (when nobody asked), you can't play the victim when people acknowledge it.

> yours is the only insult so far

What insult?

> The law is heavily based on precedent.

Yes, and that precedent is on my side.

You admit your ignorance, but when people who aren't ignorant contradict your assertions, you double down on your ignorance and consistently move the goal posts.

At the end of the day, you are arguing in support of violations of the first amendment. If you find that declaration insulting, reevaluate why you insist your ignorance is the right approach.

I take it you’re not really one for HOAs.

Correct.

That being said, I'm also open to other people giving up that right and signing onto an HOA.

However, you have to have that right in the first place to give it up.

> Please explain how my free speech is taken away by a TikTok ban. I don't understand.

The executive is unilaterally deciding users cannot have an app on their phone, and that as a US citizen I cannot access APIs in another country simply because the executive has declared it.

For me it is all about how this is implemented and there is no way I can see this not being implemented in a way that serves as a vast expansion of government powers.

Do they shut tikTok out of DNS?

Do they tell people they aren't allowed to install the app?

Do they tell google and apple they aren't allowed to have the app in the app star?

Do they block their IPs from being routed in the US?

There's no real way to bring a "TikTok" ban into effect that doesn't constitute a massive increase of power the executive has to regulate the internet.

On the flip side I 100% think we need to figure out how to get TikTok out of here as it is 100% a tool by the CCP. So I am conflicted and confused.

None of things you list here have anything to do with speech, though. Nor do they oppress the things you say.

The point of parent’s comment is calling this oppression of speech is incorrect, and I’d agree. Does that make this any less of a bad thing? In my mind, no! But lets argue for or against it on genuine terms.

Isn't tiktok a tool used for speech? If we take away phones, radios and TV is that blocking free speech? I can still technically go outdoors and shout but my reach isn't as far. I mean I guess I can technically still articulate my opinions without retaliation and legal sanction but I think this goes against the "censorship" bit if they take away our platforms.

I don’t know. To me there is a difference in blocking a specific tool versus blocking a specific topic or phrase, which is what I would call censorship.

Even the media type being blocked still has (albeit worse) alternatives; instagram, youtube, snapchat, and probably others have a similar format that could still be used. So it’s not really preventing us from using the “short clip” format for speech in general.

Maybe I’m just old. But it feels disingenuous to call it an affront to freedom of speech. TO BE CLEAR, it’s not GOOD, and I don’t think it should HAPPEN. But it’s just weird to see the meaning of words shift before my eyes.

That's fair. This act alone I don't think is an attempt to suppress American voices. It's wrong for other reasons. Still worried it sets a bad precedent for shutting down things they don't like.

> The executive is unilaterally deciding users cannot have an app on their phone, and that as a US citizen I cannot access APIs in another country simply because the executive has declared it.

I can understand not liking that, but it has nothing to do with free speech. This is regulating commerce.

> There's no real way to bring a "TikTok" ban into effect that doesn't constitute a massive increase of power the executive

TikTok is a company with a balance sheet to protect. They'll pull their app when told to avoid the US government taking their money. Apple and Google will also pull it from the app store. There's nothing new here.

The New York Times is a company. If the government banned the New York Times, they would be violating the First Amendment.

The answer is (2). The first amendment applies to companies because groups of people need organized structures to exercise their freedoms.

The press is specifically mentioned in the first amendment. Are you saying Bytedance is the press?

It seems clear to me that any company hiding behind Section 230 neutrality cannot also claim to be a member of the press.

TikTok doesn’t need to be part of the press, it just needs be composed of humans protected by the First Amendment, the same way the NYT is composed of humans protected by the First Amendment.

Same logic applies to every part of the first amendment:

1. Can government ban the Episcopal Church as long as they don’t prosecute individual members of if?

2. Can government ban Ruthless Records from selling the song “Fuck the Police”?

I think "press" can include companies. How would you define a member of the press? Banning a church seems like a different topic, but I would say banning a newspaper violates the First Amendment.

I'm old enough to remember the radio version of "Fuck the Police" because playing the song was banned.

The freedom of the press is the freedom to print (“press”) and distribute writing. Just like freedom of speech, it can possibly be pursued by an individual, but the first amendment also protects groups of people acting together in corporate form. The government can easily engage in tyranny if it’s able to squash groups of people who dissent together.

TikTok, like any other product with user driven content is using Section 230 to disavow responsibility for the content on their app.

If it's not TikTok's speech how can they claim the first amendment? The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.

> The users speaking can just as easily use a different app, website, newspaper, whatever.

This is something you have to argue, not something that you can just declare. And the "just as easily" is where you're going to run into a problem.

I mean, short form video is available on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and those are just the ones I know about. How is having one less option impacting someone's ability to speak?

"People use a product to speak therefor the product cannot be regulated" is not a claim I'd heard before the TikTok debate. Seems to contradict previous interpretations of the first amendment that allowed the regulation of cable, TV broadcast, and radio.

The press isn't designated by law anywhere but dictatorships (where you have to be licensed to be a legitimate journalist.) The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through.

> The press is any medium that a citizen of the US is expressing themselves through.

So everyone is the press and any product used to speak cannot be regulated? This country has regulated TV broadcast and radio for longer than I've been alive so that's a pretty big change.

> Please explain how my free speech is taken away by a TikTok ban.

The government prevents you from communicating with TikTok.

“Banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment. The government can’t impose this type of total ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious, immediate harm to national security. There’s no public evidence of that type of harm, and a ban would not be the only option for addressing that harm if it did exist,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU.

Personally, I tend to let the ACLU guide my opinion in these cases, as they are the experts here.

> Depending on the day, HN is convinced that

Let's do this.

> free speech is an obligation of private companies to their customers

The use is common parlance here. In this case, the idea is the company allows it's users to speak relatively freely (within the limits of what their T&C say). The companies generally push toward some level of preferring to allow speech rather than blocking it entirely.

Your average HN person here understands we aren't literally talking about the 1st Amendment in this case.

> free speech is an obligation of the government to companies

In this case, the government can't limit a company's speech. This has been upheld numerous times in the courts. The government can't require a company or people at the company to say something, except in special circumstances.

> It is neither.

It's interesting you take a literal approach to this in a post where you say this: "HN is convinced."

HN is simply two letters. The two letters are convinced of nothing. They are letters and cannot be convinced.

If by HN, you mean Hacker News, this website, then again, the website itself does not think. It cannot be convinced of anything. It's code that returns content.

If you mean people here on HN, the community, then your comment proves your statement is incomplete and, therefore, misleading. It is not just one of two options.

Basically, if you don't understand the context of the use of "free speech" in normal every day conversation and instead want it to be taken one way and one way only, you should really check your comments themselves for the use of colloquialisms so you don't do the same thing.

> Depending on the day, HN is convinced that

It’s not really the day as much as it is whether they feel personally victimized or not.

Banning TikTok wouldn't take your free speech away, but the Restrict Act doesn't even directly ban Tiktok. It gives the government broad rights to censor any content it deems "undermining the democratic process" among other things, and gives it the power to enforce large fines and long prison time against people who help get around the ban (like providing a VPN).

The Restrict Act basically allows the US to impose Chinese-level censorship across the "Western" internet and persecute any one in the US who helps circumvent the censorship.

Sure it may be used to ban Tiktok, but what do you think will happen when the next whistleblower posts content online? What happens when the US finds cryptography for us normal people a threat to US democratic process? Ect ect...

Calling it the TikTok ban is just clever marketing sugar to make the censorship go down...

I thought it gives the Gov the power to fine and jail you if you install an app on your device that they decide you should not have?

I don't recall it saying anything about banning specific apps.

Correct me if I read the summary of the Restrict Act wrong.

> The Restrict Act basically allows the US to impose Chinese-level censorship across the "Western" internet and persecute any one in the US who helps circumvent the censorship.

This statement is at least as misleading as the "Tiktok ban" rhetoric you're criticizing.

How? They could declare everything and anything as antidemocratic. There is legitimately no oversight to the Secretary of Commerce, which is an appointed position.

If the act is passed, the only thing stopping the government from taking it to such an extreme is the self-control of the government itself. That isn't very reassuring.

My understanding is that it only applies to foreign entities. Still overly broad, but a far cry from the claims of censorship.