[throwaway199956]

But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA.

What changed now?

Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.

[int0x29]

People have rights to speak within reason. Governments don't. The Chinese government shaping content is not protected. The law notably does not ban individual content.

[throwaway199956]

Are they banning any TV channels from hostile countries? RT, for example can be watched by Americans without restriction.

[derektank]

RT is required to register as a foreign agent in the US and is required to disclose information regarding its activities in the country or be subject to civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance. So I would not say it's able to operate without restriction.

[daedrdev]

They can if they choose to do so. Its not trademark law, just because a government doesnt do something doesnt mean it cannot do something

[samr71]

They will soon!

Lmao these people are rubes. It's like every other bs "national security" argument.

Expect Yandex, VK, RT, Sputnik, SCMP, etc. to be banned as well under similar pretenses.

"Comrades! We can not let these Western dogs infect our proud Soviet minds with this 'Radio Free Europe'!"

[zacharyz]

The justices seem to have argued that eliminating a platform for speech does not inhibit your ability to voice that speech on another platform, so is not a violation of the first amendment. I think this is an important outcome and really goes against what many so called "free speech absolutists" would argue.

[ls612]

Individuals can bring Pravda into the USA that is protected speech. But Congress could ban Pravda from doing business in the US same as it can ban or sanction any other foreign business.

[slowmovintarget]

Because the law bans the operation of software by a foreign adversary. It does not ban speech.

Legal precedent holds that source code (the expressive part of software) is speech, but that executing software (the functional part) is not speech. Even when the operation conveys speech, the ban is on the functional operation of the software, so the First Amendment doesn't apply.

[AJ007]

It seems like everyone missed the analogy of TikTok being like a Soviet newspaper, but the better analogy was like Tiktok being a tracking device, which transmitted your exact location, along with a microphone and video camera provided by the Soviet. The hardware may be Apple (made in China, designed in California), but the software extends the hardware usage to the software provider. I'm not sure there was any era of US history which the law would have permitted that.

[parineum]

> Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed.

> Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections.

It's not an erosion because it was already true and has been true for centuries.

[ruilov]

they found some of the arguments compelling and acknowledged that the law may burden free speech. But they also found that the law is not about speech, it's about corporate ownership. In these cases the court will often (not always) defer to congress / the state.

[psunavy03]

What Sotomayor said is irrelevant; she's one of nine Justices. What is in the opinion is what is controlling.