[blindriver]

First amendment rights is the only argument that I agree with keeping TikTok alive. However if there is proof that China is manipulating the algorithm to feed the worst manipulative content to Americans then I do think there’s a national security concern here.

[p_j_w]

There are no carve outs for national security in the First Amendment.

[smt88]

Yes there are. The First Amendment is limited by compelling government interest, which (in practice) means it can be fairly arbitrarily by SCOTUS.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendmen...

[nickelpro]

The SCOTUS opinion does not rely on a national security interest to justify itself, merely that the ban is content neutral and thus is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

[throwaway199956]

What does intermediate scrutiny mean?

[nickelpro]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

[Spunkie]

This is an especially superficial take, sure the Constitution says nothing about national security but reality sure does...

Any person that has ever gotten a security clearance has given up some of their first amendment rights to do it and if they talk about the wrong thing to the wrong person they will absolutely go to jail.

And as always the classic example of free speech being limited still stands. Go yell FIRE in a crowded movie and see how your dumbass 1st amendment argument keeps you out of jail.

[xigency]

Bit of a non-sequitor here but the classic example of yelling 'Fire' in a theater has me thinking about public safety. Obviously there have been many crowd-crush related injuries and fatalities throughout history. But we've also come a long way since the 1800's or 1900's with fire drills, emergency exits, etc.

It almost seems like any hazard or danger from a false alarm (intentional or otherwise) should be the liability of the owners or operators of a property for unsafe infrastructure or improper safety briefing.

Anyway, I don't expect that to appear as a major legal issue, given this is primarily used as a rhetorical example.

[insane_dreamer]

> However if there is proof that China is manipulating the algorithm

it doesn't matter whether they have manipulated the algorithm so far; the issue is that they have the _ability_ to manipulate the algorithm if they choose to. It's not hard to imagine how big of a problem this would be if China and the US indirectly went to war over Taiwan, for example.

[parineum]

Bytedance was trying to make your argument. The ruling is that the first ammendment doesn't apply and that was always a stretch for Bytedance as illustrated by the unanimous decision.

[croes]

Lets face the truth, the user get what they want, no need to manipulate.

Just look at US social media sites. It’s not like they push MINT content, do they?

[throwaway199956]

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".

First ammendment protections have no National security caveats.

[kube-system]

That is completely false. There are many exceptions to the first amendment which the court has decided don't abridge the freedom of speech.

A classic example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_t...

[CamperBob2]

The courts can say anything they want, and they did... but then, so could the authors of the First Amendment, and they didn't.

[kube-system]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but the law is whatever congress has passed, whatever the courts have interpreted, and whatever the executive executes. People who read the Constitution and make up their own interpretation clearly missed the part about the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary.

[CamperBob2]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but the law is whatever congress has passed, whatever the courts have interpreted, and whatever the executive executes.

My point is, the First Amendment tells Congress not to do that.

What exactly does "shall make no law" mean to you? Be specific.

[kube-system]

The text says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law regulating any kind of speech"

The difference between these two, if it isn't already obvious, is that people do not have a right to all types of speech.

Congress can, always could, and always has regulated speech for which people do not have a recognized right to make. Things like fraud or threats are not legal, and Congress is absolutely within their right to make these types of speech illegal, and it would be silly and unfounded to suggest that they couldn't.

Furthermore, your personal interpretation of the text is irrelevant. The Constitution itself delegates the judiciary as the body which can interpret it. And they have, many times, ruled that the 1st has exceptions.

So you may have a strong opinion about what you want the law to be, but you are not correct about what is actually is.