Just Some Trivia: It Was Unconstitutional When Tangerine (Acting Alone) Tried It; It Is Also UNCONSTITUTIONAL, When Congress Tries It...

Let us at least be consistent: a wholly-private business, one that allows people to converse quietly with one another (outside the government's earshot). . . cannot be ordered to shutter, here in the US, and cannot be ordered to be divested -- by the US government. Not without running afoul of the First Amendment.

This is so, because there are dozens of less restrictive means -- of achieving the putatively lawful ends the Congress seeks.

Just as was true, when Trump tried it (see legacy image at right) by mere executive order. The "prior restraint" attempted here -- in dozens of differing cases -- has almost always fallen, to concerns about suppressing lawful expressions / speech. And it will. . . fall again (so Condor predicts). But if we said Tangerine was wrong, in 2019 -- and we did -- we must say. . . this Congress too, is wrong. Here's a bit of the Beeb on it:

. . .In the filing, the social media company called the act an "extraordinary intrusion on free speech rights" of the company and its 170 million American users.

It said the US had put forward only "speculative concerns" to justify the measure and asked the court to stop it. . . .

It followed years of debate in Washington, which has claimed that TikTok's Chinese ownership raises the risk that data on US users could fall into the hands of the Chinese government or be used for propaganda.

TikTok has maintained it is independent of the government, while parent company ByteDance has said it has no plans to sell the business. . . .

And all this is AFTER we admit that there is no technical way to "ban" a service like Tiktok. If national security is the issue, then on the ground investigative work, backed by judicial warrants, is the lawful way to go. Not unconstitutional and ineffective. . . bannings, in any event. Onward.

नमस्ते