TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by josephcsible on Sunday January 19, 2025 @04:45PM (#42762224)

If you used to assemble at a public park, and the city closes the park entirely to turn it into something else, does that violate your right to assemble too?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by DangitBobby on Sunday January 19, 2025 @06:54PM (#42763414)

If the specific intent was to make it difficult to assemble, then yes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by lupusreal on Monday January 20, 2025 @06:10AM (#42767437)

The law hasn't made it difficult to use alternatives to tiktok, which are free and numerous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by sethammons on Sunday January 19, 2025 @06:23PM (#42763200)

depends. Was it the de facto town square?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by pixl97 on Sunday January 19, 2025 @06:36PM (#42763282)

Even if it was the town square, if the property went from public to private ownership property ownership laws trump your free speech laws. You cannot come on to my properly and say whatever you want, more so you can't say it's not trespassing because of freedom of speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TikTok says it is restoring service for U.S. users by afiori on Sunday January 19, 2025 @08:10PM (#42763909)

If the city sold the public property with the specific intent of having a private entity stop protected speech they were powerless to stop then yes, it would be a free speech issue

[ Parent | on HN ]