Solicitor: This [violation of freedom of speech] was passed with a broad bipartisan consensus. Our legislators rarely agree so we should just let them do it.
Edit:
Solicitor: “the PRC might make false flag anti-China content” lmao what?
Also the solicitor is trying to argue that the ban isn’t content based (aka definitely a 1st amendment violation) while frequently mentioning supposed or theoretical content manipulation by China. The Justices don’t seem to be buying it.
Kagan mentioning CPUSA as a comparison by theorizing a bill that would force the CPUSA to “divest” from the Comintern lel.
No idea what her angle is there, but she’s asking the question to the solicitor general who is defending the ban.
Solicitor: This [violation of freedom of speech] was passed with a broad bipartisan consensus. Our legislators rarely agree so we should just let them do it.
Edit:
Solicitor: “the PRC might make false flag anti-China content” lmao what?
Also the solicitor is trying to argue that the ban isn’t content based (aka definitely a 1st amendment violation) while frequently mentioning supposed or theoretical content manipulation by China. The Justices don’t seem to be buying it.
“This law isn’t regulating the US users in any way.”
It’s literally banning a widely used platform of speech for them.
KJB: “Isn’t the point that the content of TikTok would change under a new owner?”
Sotomayor: “How is the post-divestiture provision about the algorithm not a speech impediment?”
Yeah, the Justices don’t really seem to be buying it.