Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law, it's unclear whether third-party internet service providers will support the app.
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That’s the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
This is correct, but the law doesn’t do that. It mentions TikTok in the title, but the text describes what is banned in terms of user count and control by a foreign adversary. It would apply to a future product made by a Russian company, for example.
No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.
Foreign adversary controlled application.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok; …
If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.
Looking at the court’s opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it’s unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that’s a question for people who know more about law than I do.
Then they should be fired. The Constitution, in plain English, bans the practice of naming a person or group in a law specifically to punish them. That’s the domain of courts. These judges are either illiterate or corrupt.
This is correct, but the law doesn’t do that. It mentions TikTok in the title, but the text describes what is banned in terms of user count and control by a foreign adversary. It would apply to a future product made by a Russian company, for example.
No. It literally says TikTok in the text of the bill. It also has a super broad description of other covered companies. But then also bans TikTok by name. The law is Public Law 118-50. The stuff in Congress is not the end of a bill. It has to go through reconciliation, where it can change, and then it goes to the desk of the president.
If you care to find it in the statutes at large or USC then have at it. But this is what Biden signed.
I missed that part. Thanks for the correction.
Looking at the court’s opinion (PDF), it appears this case did not raise that issue. I think it’s unlikely it would be considered a bill of attainder because what it does is technically not punishment, but that’s a question for people who know more about law than I do.
A forced sale below market value is absolutely punishment. And being banned is 100% punitive.