TikTok reportedly plans to file a lawsuit against the potential US ban

[Rocketdog2112]

10 minutes ago, Phantasmagoria said:

this has nothing to do with tictok. instead of reading vague rulings, do some research on the case at hand. and apply your beliefs  across the board. usually these people that dont want "chinese interference" are ok with other countries they like to interfere.

 

if this was truly a national security issue, they should of banned it long time ago. the reasons they are banning now it is the problem.

Vague?

Has nothing to do with tic toc? 

Did you read? 

Tic Toc is a foreign organization operating abroad. Therefore, the excuse the ban violates their right to free speech (or any other Constitutional Right) in the United States does not hold water.

You were making the argument for free speech.

Now you've changed your narrative to a security issue.

Stop moving the goal posts 

[Rocketdog2112]

17 minutes ago, Phantasmagoria said:

 

free speech is pretty clear in the constitution.

What fine print? Are you saying tic toc is not a foreign organization operating abroad?

Time to put down the bong.

I changed nothing. The ruling I cited is crystal clear that the US Constitution does not apply to foreign organizations doing business in the United States.

[Rocketdog2112]

24 minutes ago, Phantasmagoria said:

not exactly check the fine print. if that was this case this would of been open and shut long time ago. you changed the narrative with this irrelevant notion.

free speech is pretty clear in the constitution.

A Constitution that applies to who?...

We the People of these United States.

I changed nothing. I simply refuted your original claim that tic tocs right to free speech in the United States was being violated. A right that does not exist per the Supreme Courts ruling. 

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

[Rocketdog2112]

7 hours ago, Phantasmagoria said:

it is irrelevant because if that was the case, tiktok wouldn't have a leg to stand on but they standing. explain that ( dont actually explain ) the ruling you posted has nothing to do with the tiktok case. even the administration says its not a ban its a divestment. you are not aware of the full situation so yes the fine print. if tiktok didnt have protection under first amendment, they wouldn't be able to sue. this is my last post im making about this. all in all, i disagree with your hypothesis.

Make up your mind...

Is it a security issue,

or is it a First Amendment issue?

Once again you keep switching teams.

And please, expand on this "fine print" you keep referring to.

 

Even though I have provided set in stone legal precedent that disproves your First Amendment argument, you have yet to provide any information to disprove it.

Net

Buzzer 

Game

[Rocketdog2112]

1 hour ago, Phantasmagoria said:

you haven't provided anything. what u provided is not tiktoks case, thug go read the "find print". ( meaning check the details ) i haven't switched up anything. i simply disagree with your hypothesis

 

if its a national security issue, why haven't they banned it after all this time. they could of done it in a day if that was the case

the reasons they SAY they are banning it for, is a first amendment issue. maybe go do some research on the topic instead of blindly listening to lobbyist in your echo chamber. start with the wikipedia page for tiktok.

 

this all started with lobbyist funded by meta.

And I disagree with you denying switching platforms that started out with Free Speech to your current soap box stand of National Security.

Say bye bye to tic toc either way...

[Rocketdog2112]

1 hour ago, Phantasmagoria said:

na i have done none of that.  i have been consistent in what i have been saying. people can go read it above. you just parroting talking points with no context. so far tiktok is still here and you seem mad about it.

So this wasn't you?

[Rocketdog2112]

2 hours ago, Phantasmagoria said:

yes and i stand by that statement and everything else i consistently said. you are either gravely misinformed, or grossly incompetent. most probably the ladder cuz in this day n age, gravely misinformed is a symptom of gross incompetence

I cite a Supreme Court case that shoots holes all in your free speech theory. All you got is "read the fine print" and deflecting because you can't back up your misinformation with a solid reference.

And you evidently can't spell (cuz, ladder?) read, comprehend or use proper punctuation to form complete sentences. 

That in itself shows me the incompetence I'm dealing with.

It's like I'm trying to have a conversation with a 6 year old.

[Needfuldoer]

[ Thread cleaned ]

 

Personal insults have no place in a healthy debate.

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

This was let to run under two conditions:

• Civil discussion
• No politics

It had been proven yet again that politics = bad manners.