The TikTok ban law doesn’t actually specifically target TikTok in that way, instead it targets applications owned or controlled by a foreign adversary, of which TikTok is the first one enforcement has been turned against. RedNote or RedBook or whatever it’s called almost certainly is also banned under it, and it’s just a matter of the law being enforced.
TikTok could have gotten out of it by selling or splitting in such a way that US TikTok was not under Chinese control.
Yes, but the courts used some bullshit reasoning to uphold it anyway. They said it didn’t constitute a punishment because the law required a sale rather than a confiscation, and because the company could theoretically re-enter the market with a different app (lol).
I suppose it’s similar to eminent domain where the government can force you to sell your house if it’s in the way of something like a rail line, but it’s not considered a punishment since you’re compensated for it (at whatever price they decide is fair). Basically, the government is allowed to fuck with you quite a bit so long as they can provide a justification for why they’re doing it that isn’t personal.
thank you; that was very informative. I tried to look it up but every article seemed to approach it from the first amendment angle and I didn’t find anything about equal protection.
isn’t it unconstitutional to target specific entities with laws?
The TikTok ban law doesn’t actually specifically target TikTok in that way, instead it targets applications owned or controlled by a foreign adversary, of which TikTok is the first one enforcement has been turned against. RedNote or RedBook or whatever it’s called almost certainly is also banned under it, and it’s just a matter of the law being enforced.
TikTok could have gotten out of it by selling or splitting in such a way that US TikTok was not under Chinese control.
Yes, but the courts used some bullshit reasoning to uphold it anyway. They said it didn’t constitute a punishment because the law required a sale rather than a confiscation, and because the company could theoretically re-enter the market with a different app (lol).
I suppose it’s similar to eminent domain where the government can force you to sell your house if it’s in the way of something like a rail line, but it’s not considered a punishment since you’re compensated for it (at whatever price they decide is fair). Basically, the government is allowed to fuck with you quite a bit so long as they can provide a justification for why they’re doing it that isn’t personal.
thank you; that was very informative. I tried to look it up but every article seemed to approach it from the first amendment angle and I didn’t find anything about equal protection.
The phrase you’re looking for for a law that targets a specific entity is “Bill of Attainder.”
This was my source for the info, that includes the text of the court ruling.
awesome, thanks!
Idk if the Constitution enters into it when the company in question is not American.
it’s called the law of the land, not the law of the people. if laws don’t cover non-american entities then they can’t commit crimes.