Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks

Trump Urges Supreme Court To Delay TikTok Ban (bbc.com) 119

Posted by BeauHD from the not-so-fast dept.
President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the upcoming TikTok ban while he works on a "political resolution." In a legal brief (PDF) on Friday, his lawyer said Trump "opposes banning TikTok" and "seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office." The BBC reports: Trump had met with TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew, at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida last week. In his court filing on Friday, Trump said the case represents "an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national security concerns on the other." While the filing said that Trump "takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute", it added that pushing back the 19 January deadline would grant Trump "the opportunity to pursue a political resolution" to the matter without having to resort to the court. [...]

Trump has publicly said he opposes the ban, despite supporting one in his first term as president. "I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok, because I won youth by 34 points," he claimed at a press conference earlier in December, although a majority of young voters backed his opponent, Kamala Harris. "There are those that say that TikTok has something to do with that," he added. Earlier this month, TikTok asked the Supreme Court to block the ban, saying that the law violates both its First Amendment rights and those of its 170 million American users.

Trump Urges Supreme Court To Delay TikTok Ban More | Reply

Trump Urges Supreme Court To Delay TikTok Ban

Comments Filter:

  • The check cashed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @07:05PM (#65051673)
    Its easy when they advertise they can be bought.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      It's equally likely that he's arranging for one of the billionaires to buy the platform so that they can use it like Twitter was used to help win elections for the Republican party and the billionaires that own it.

      When Elon musk and Vivek came right out and said we were going to get more H1B's and Trump just quietly agreed I think it became 110% clear who the Republican party sides with

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 )

        This was my first thought, he wants to force it to be sold to a political crony, just like last time with Larry Ellison:

        https://www.npr.org/2020/09/21... [npr.org]

        • TikTok will be sold to an American entity. Trump does not want it devalued. Quite frankly, this is a blatant violation of TikTok's (or really, ByteDance's, and if you don't think corporations have that right (they do); then the shareholders') first amendment rights.

          If I was ByteDance, I would let them ban it, then sue the federal government in the supreme court over first amendment violations with huge financial upside. These rights are meant to restrain government. What the fuck are we letting them do?
          • so that is the plain ByteDance, is doing. wait for the ban the sue the crap out of these fools for the first amendment violations.

          • Quite frankly, this is a blatant violation of TikTok's first amendment rights.

            Corporations are not people. People cannot be owned, corporations must be owned. Speech is nt about where a corporation's owner is.

            • The first amendment applies to what a company can say/publish. Companies are organizations of people, and just a vehicle for that speech.

              • Again corporations are not people. This has to do with corporate ownership. How is corporate ownership a matter of speech? This is about ownership of the corporation.

          • At the same time, we shouldn't let the Chinese government have power I've us that it shouldn't have.
            • Who is this "us" you speak of?

              Let's extrapolate the sentence out to what you're really saying.

              At the same time, we shouldn't let the Chinese government attempt to ply its message to other free-thinking voters in the US, who have a constitutional right to think and vote as they will.

              Anti-propaganda statutes are inherently anti-1A.
              It's like trying to prevent your kid from accessing the internet so that they don't learn what fucking is.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by abulafia ( 7826 )
        No, Jeff Jass (finance billionaire) personally owns a 7% stake in ByteDance and more through his other vehicles, and also "invested" in Truth Social. So they've been talking. Also, apparently some of Tubby's campaign videos did unexpectedly well on Tiktok, which also turned supposedly his head.

      • It's not likely no. The entire point is that if the ban goes through, TikTok's majority-Chinese owned owners will have to divest themselves of it (ie sell it to someone like Ellison.) If Trump stops the ban, then TikTok can continue without a change in ownership.

        I think this is because of heavy lobbying by the Chinese government providing unspecified incentives. Trump's children certainly operate companies that rely on Chinese manufacturing, and certain US billionaires want uninterrupted, favorable, access

        • ByteDance is not majority Chinese-owned.
          It is incorporated in China, and thus subject to Chinese laws. If you're going to have an opinion, at least have it from the foundation of having your fucking facts straight.
      • Yep, President Musk wants it, so, President Musk gets it, and First Lady Trump will fight for it for him.

  • #WhatsInItForMe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30, 2024 @07:13PM (#65051685)
    Welcome to the next four year's of "I only like this, if there's something in it for me" government.

    Not exactly a new situation, but more brazen.and in your face.

  • My inauguration will have to be posted on YouTube!

  • Don't ban them... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by newslash.formatblows ( 2011678 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @07:27PM (#65051711)
    until they can pay me to stop it.

  • Free speech (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Free speech but only on approved mediums.

    • lets fix that free speech but only on platforms we control and censor.
      • Yup. It's the Chinese Free Speech model.
        Anyone with their eyes open can see that these fuckers are just jealous of China's ability to control its population.

  • Hmm. (Score:2)

    by kellin ( 28417 )

    Trump Flip Flops again. Then again, so do the Democrats. I'm pretty sure they were against banning Tik Tok when Trump wanted to ban it, and now that he wants a stay, they're still fighting for a ban...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Legislation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @08:43PM (#65051855)

    Congress passed legislation. That IS a political solution.

    There is really no legal basis for the court to delay implementing the law to give the incoming President a chance to persuade congress to overturn it. I think the law is stupid, but that isn't a reason for the court to throw it out either. Of course they can find a reason if they decide to and this may just be a political signal to the court to find one.

    • Congress passed legislation. That IS a political solution.

      There is really no legal basis for the court to delay implementing the law to give the incoming President a chance to persuade congress to overturn it. I think the law is stupid, but that isn't a reason for the court to throw it out either. Of course they can find a reason if they decide to and this may just be a political signal to the court to find one.

      Yeah, I was actually kinda baffled that they didn't even bother to make a legal argument. The GOP legal hacks are on board [reason.com] but I feel like they at least need to throw SCOTUS a fig leaf of legalese (at least the non Thomas/Gorsch/Alito camp).

    • There is really no legal basis for the court to delay implementing the law to give the incoming President a chance to persuade congress to overturn it.

      There's no persuading needed. As President, Trump just has to tell the DOJ to back off pursuing this and then he chooses to not enforce the law. But he can't do that until he's actually president on Jan 20, one day after this is suppose to go into effect on Jan 19, 2025.

      • Even if he publicly says that he will order the DOJ not to enforce the law, Apple and Google will both drop it from their app stores because they can't trust him not to flip on a dime the moment he doesn't like it. At that point, it's a $5000 fine per user installing or accessing app since the start of the ban. Trump can also just hold that over them as leverage, having someone quietly suggest that if they don't do this or that, then he'll order the ban enforced. For even a million users, that's $5 billion

        • they have no way to enforce such a fine or ban outside the app stores. people will just side-load it at least on android and move on with their day.
      • who is gonna enforce it anyways? this is just more bad law.
    • why is it even in the Supreme Court its not a continual matter but legislative.
      • The issue before the Supreme Court is whether it's constitutional for US Congress to pass a law targeting a single US entity (TikTok USA) requiring that they sell their primary asset. Should Congress be able to pass a law that says luther349 has to sell their boat just because they don't like the person? That's essentially what happened here. The US DoJ is making the argument that the TikTok case is special since ByteDance USA is some sort of national security threat.

    • -

      Congress passed legislation. That IS a political solution.

      Rules and procedures are irrelevant in a post-truth society. America is so fucked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      There is really no legal basis for the court to delay implementing the law

      The legal basis would be a temporary hold while the court considers a case challenging the legality/enforceability of the law.

      Temporary injunctions while a case is considered are not unusual. As to whether they would be granted it generally depends on a decision made by the judge about whether irreparable harm will occur without the injunction and less or more harm to the public would occur with the injunction in place. It's p

      • The legal basis would be a temporary hold while the court considers a case challenging the legality/enforceability of the law.

        As I said, they will find a reason. But you left off the key part of my comment:

        There is really no legal basis for the court to delay implementing the law to give the incoming President a chance to persuade congress to overturn it.

  • Apple Computers are Made In China ! (Score:3)

    by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @09:33PM (#65051915) Homepage

    Yet they're banning an app because it's owners are Chinese?

    I'll admit it, I haven't been paying attention and even if I had been, I'm basically an idiot.

    Can someone explain the rationale like I'm a 5 year-old?

    • Re:Apple Computers are Made In China ! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TurboStar ( 712836 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @10:35PM (#65051987)

      Can someone explain the rationale like I'm a 5 year-old?

      No, because the issue is too complex for a 5 year-old to understand.

      It's not because the owners are Chinese. It's because the company is operated in a country that is politically hostile to the United States. There are no protections from the Chinese government taking control and using the platform for propaganda or other influences.

      • Re:Apple Computers are Made In China ! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2024 @12:38AM (#65052179) Homepage Journal

        What protections are there for a billionaire talking control of Twitter and using it for propaganda or political purposes?

        • What protections are there for a billionaire talking control of Twitter and using it for propaganda or political purposes?

          The same as for TikTok. Do you really think the government would have sat idly by and watched a Chinese company take it over? This isn't about billionaires, it's about *WHICH* billionaires.

      • It's because the company is operated in a country that is politically hostile to the United States. There are no protections from the Chinese government taking control and using the platform for propaganda or other influences.

        Huh? The Chinese can pay American companies to send out the propaganda. There is no defense as the dollar rules EVERYTHING in corporate America. What extra protections do you think you have based on the location of the putative 'owner'?

      • China has long banned Google and X/Twitter on national security grounds, which are allowed to trump free speech guarantees, both here and in China.

        Banning TikTok would be a reasonable retaliation.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Thaelon ( 250687 )

      No, they're banning it because the anti-Israel / Pro-Palestine movement on there is enormous on it because it's not zionist controlled like most legacy media.

      Which is why the only escape hatch is being sold to a Zionist.

  • Thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday December 30, 2024 @10:02PM (#65051945)

    Imagine how Trump would react to the next president-elect trying this while he was still in the White House.

    • Probably the same way as Mitch McConnell did with the supreme court nominations. Wax poetic when it works in the democrats favour, and claim it's a duty to democracy and a clear right of the republican party when it works in the republican's favour.

      Rules and consistency are for the idiots on the other side.

  • I've been hearing about the issues the US have with TikTok for the longest time. Why aren't other countries scrutinizing big tech companies from the US and China?

  • Trump said the case represents "an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national security concerns on the other."

    No he didn't.

    Have you really not heard how Trump speaks?

    • He can, for short periods immediately following some accepted direction, read off a teleprompter or cue card with minimal proficiency.

      Too many syllables per word or too many sentences and he'll veer off on random rants that sound like they are coming from the mind of someone who didn't make it to high school, though.

  • Rest, my cronies, rest... for tomorrow, we *feast!*

  • No way Trump is going to negotiate a deal to allow TikTok to continue that doesn't primarily benefit himself. That's just no how he works.

    The only question is what Trump is personally looking to receive in return - some tax break for a Chinese business venture, or some Chinese funds funneled into his US business interests somehow...

    If Trump allows TikTok to continue and you can't see what he personally got out of it, then you won't have been looking deeply enough. He's not doing it as a thank you to young v

    • His campaign on TikTok was surprisingly effective. It's likely that his Musk and Ramswamy want TikTok to continue as they they think they can leverage it to elect more Republican candidates to cut taxes for the rich. I'm not sure how this will play out given that the rich already pay such paltry taxes. But I believe that's the strategy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Leveraging always beats prototyping.

Close