| HN Mirror

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-A/part-7/subp...

> requiring that their preferred press must only controlled by the government's preferred owners?

By “preferred owners” you mean literally anybody not from China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia or Venezuela [1]. Anyone in America, Europe, most of the Americas, most of Asia, and all of Africa. (Oz can come too.)

orhmeh09 748 days ago

Yes, as you have just shown, there is a category of "preferred owners."

> there is a category of "preferred owners."

There isn’t. There is a category of foreign adversaries. It’s negative selection, not positive. “Preferred owners” would be the U.S. government requiring joint venturing with a hand-picked JV partner. Like Beijing.

ARandomerDude 748 days ago

Come on, spend 5 more minutes thinking about this.

Phase 1: restricted if from China

Phase 2: restricted if influenced by China

Phase 3: restricted if sympathetic to China

Phase 4: China isn’t the only bad thing for America. If you have the following ideas, those are just as dangerous. “Speech is violence.” Also “silence is violence.”

This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

> This has been lived out in front of our eyes so many times

If you’re referring to McCarthyism, note that his House Un-American proceedings lost steam when they were thrown out by the courts [1]. (It was also limited to government employment, where the state has more power.)

Otherwise, this is just a slippery-slope argument that can be used against any regulation, including the First Amendment.

ARandomerDude 748 days ago

It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11.

You used to be able to get on an airplane without scanning your retinas.

You used to be able to walk into a bank and make a transaction without it being immediately reported to the IRS.

Your private correspondence was not scanned and digitized by the post office.

All the above freedoms, and so many more, are not only gone they are illegal.

Slippery slopes exist and the government uses them with great competence.

> It sounds like you aren’t old enough to remember life before 9/11

Incorrect. Focus on the argument.

> Slippery slopes exist

Sure. But concluding by arguing their existence is a literal fallacy.

Another slippery slope: food safety. Or our aversion to animal and child cruelty. Compounding social effects that build on themselves. That these exist isn’t disputed. That they exist also doesn’t mean they always manifest. In this case, there is zero evidence of compounding and every one of moderation through iteration. (Contrast Trump’s first efforts with the House’s first bill with what finally passed.)

jncfhnb 748 days ago

The first amendment says nothing about ownership of the press.

whimsicalism 748 days ago

Sure, the first amendment doesn't say much in general - but ownership of the press laws almost certainly impact on the 1A as interpreted today.

jncfhnb 748 days ago

If you want to include the precedents that explicitly include examples of limiting ownership of media and distribution channels then sure

ZoomerCretin 748 days ago

And the fourth says nothing about computers and hard drives. And yet, they are safe from search without a warrant.

jncfhnb 748 days ago

… right because the fourth amendment says “search and seizure”. And as you say, that’s a search.

I am not contesting that the first amendment fails to name TikTok. I’m contesting that the first amendment does not protect your right to own media distribution channels.

We have laws that limit ownership of distribution channels already.

What do you make of limits/approval regimes for broadcast services then?

JulianChastain 748 days ago

I think that the first amendment prevents congress from banning tiktok for the reason that the content is objectionable. Instead they would need to argue that it is a nation security risk (spyware, etc)

extheat 748 days ago

The "National security" needs of the day trumps the 1st amendment. Only U.S. (and a certain other place which won't be named) propaganda is allowed.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...

Leary 748 days ago

Foreign propaganda is allowed. (Lamont vs. Postmaster General)

Limits of foreign ownership/approval regimes for broadcast services are a thing, no?

[0]: https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanit...

bydo 748 days ago

If we regulate the Internet like we do the airwaves, "obscenity, indecency, and profanity" are now illegal.[0]

>It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines indecent speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

>Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license or deny a renewal application. The FCC vigorously enforces this law where we find violations. In addition, the United States Department of Justice has authority to pursue criminal violations. Violators of the law, if convicted in a federal district court, are subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment for not more than two years.

Isn't that also showing some limits to first amendment protections (which was the point I was trying to make)?

bonestamp2 748 days ago

Yes, but the law specifically refers to companies that hold a broadcast license. Of course, the law was written in 1934 so they could challenge TikTok based not on the letter of the law but on the spirit of the law. But, case precedence is also not in their favor as they approved a 100% foreign ownership of a media company in 2017.

I didn't mean to say that that law might apply here (no idea there), just that it seems to me possible at least in some situations to put limits on foreign ownership for certain mass media.

bonestamp2 748 days ago

I agree. I just meant that they might have some trouble with that when it comes to the legal framework to do so.

Most of our social media companies can't operate in China at all. Some of the US companies that do operate in China take on part ownership of their Chinese company from the Chinese government. It's unbalanced that we would allow TikTok to operate without more oversight or some US ownership/control.

amanaplanacanal 748 days ago

I think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/310

> think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies

Source?

Section 310 of the Communications Act, which bars licenses from being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof,” was written in 1934 [1]. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed in 1938 in response to (slash fear of) Nazi propaganda [2].

[2] https://perspectives.ushmm.org/collection/propaganda-and-the...

[0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/

aw1621107 748 days ago

> > think broadcast is treated very differently because of the limited number of frequencies

> Source?

The first thing that comes to mind is Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC [0], where part of the holding relied on the limited available radio spectrum compared to other publication mediums.

2OEH8eoCRo0 748 days ago

Can we please not? This forum is better than this.

2OEH8eoCRo0 748 days ago

There are already laws against foreign ownership of media companies.