The prohibition is not on speech. It’s on installing a specific piece of software on government-issued devices, when the government has determined that software is a security & privacy threat.
The professors could legally use a third-party client app (if one exists) to connect to the service.
I'm not familiar with what apps might be available, nor can I be arsed to look. I'd phrase it more like "other ways of accessing TikTok", in which case the obvious answer is yes, starting with Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc.
The claim seems to be that it’s not the videos; it’s the installing a piece of software that grants a foreign dictatorship access to monitor Texas government employees.
It appears that the TikTok service currently requires, as a term of service, that the user consent to be monitored and tracked by a corporation ultimately controlled by the China government. That is something that the state of Texas and the US government appear to believe they have good reason to prevent on devices used for work by government employees.
In any event, it’s very much not clear that “you may not install this specific piece of software on a government device” is a speech restriction.
The American government doesn’t care about domestic tech companies spying on consumers because they get that data, too. They know how much can be fished from it so they don’t want to let China in on the game.
If you converted the source code of the tiktok app into a book, and said having that book as a PDF on those devices was prohibited, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, no?
Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding the ban but the book isn’t transmitting data is it?
I thought the TikTok ban was based on who has access to the data, not that the data exists.
I’m pretty certain transcribing confidential information into a book and calling it free speech wouldn’t circumvent the laws restricting access to that info.
The Bernstein case referred to publishing software source code, which is human-readable and does not come with permissions requirements. A compiled app, coupled with specific permissions requirements for tracking, doesn’t fit the fact pattern of the Bernstein case.
One example cited by the plaintiffs is Jacqueline Vickery, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Arts at the University of North Texas, who studies and teaches how young people use social media for expression and political organizing. “The ban has forced her to suspend research projects and change her research agenda, alter her teaching methodology, and eliminate course materials,” the complaint reads. “It has also undermined her ability to respond to student questions and to review the work of other researchers, including as part of the peer-review process.”
This is literally preventing some profs from doing their jobs properly. There has to be a way to sandbox it to negate the threat while still allowing academic research and teaching.
They can’t have the university expense a $300 Android device + a vpn to access TikTok? This solves, not having to use a government issued device that access government’s resources and networks, and being protected by using a vpn to create an onion route and preventing potential phone home.
If they cannot work around this, then I legitimately question the quality of “research” they would be conducting here.
The ban says they can't install the TikTok app on government-provided devices. I don't see why they can't have the TikTok app on their personal devices. Or if they have to visit it on a government device, why can't they use the web interface.
Eh, no reason they can't use their own data, though. To me, it's not much different than the restrictions from most companies have, where you're not supposed to use company resources for personal business.
I’m not a US citizen so I’m not sure how this works, so if I say some stupid shit you can call me out on it, but, is it not a ban only in state devices/networks?
Why is that impeding researches/studies? What is stopping them from just using a personal device on a personal network, or at least a “work” (but still personal) device/network?
I’m a USian and state government does in fact have to pay more respect to the first amendment than private businesses.
They have to show some kind of compelling interest that justifies doing something like this. And keep in mind that “state devices” are not just office PCs, but also stuff like Chromebooks distributed to schoolchildren.
I would trust university professors on something like this.
For not being a US citizen you have a better grasp on our free speech laws than the professors suing Texas. First I want to state fuck Greg Abbott. Now with that being said, it’s not a violation of free speech for the government to block a website on government devices/networks. There are already a huge number of websites that are blocked. I can understand the arguments against doing it but it’s not a violation of free speech just because they don’t block Facebook too.
Banning an app has nothing to do with free speech protection. That case will most likely be thrown out unless theirs some sneaky clause I'm missing that they are challenging here.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If they were forbidden from installing the app on their personal devices, I'd agree with you. However, the ban is on installing it on government devices, so it's their right to make that rule.
Also, if they really have to watch TikTok on government provided devices, they can watch through Firefox or Chrome or Safari. I'm not seeing any issue at all here.
Sure, that sounds good and all but do you understand the UN doesn’t have any legal power over its member nations? I’m interested in realistic, enforceable legal outcomes, not utopian dreams.
Your idealism is fun, but you really need to read more and travel some to start peeling off that thick layer of naivety.
Ah, I get it, you meant the US should voluntarily adopt UN labor regulations over defining their own because you assume UN regulations would be categorically better than what the US would ever define on their own.
Have you ever actually researched that or you just go from the premise that UN is better than the US because it’s not the US and the US is bad?
I wouldn’t go that far, I’m mostly worried about the recent push by republicans to implement victorian-era child labor in the USA. They are actually going for it, I wish I were fearmongering and just “being a tankie” but I’m not.
if the USA implements it, there will be a horde of liberal presidents doing it as well, they copy everything the USA does wrong.
Correct, I consider them a trustworthy organization, although sadly one with little power. I wouldn’t mind the UN as “The World Government” IF they had some strict, extremely strict, let me say that again, extremely strict measures in place to counter changes of policy and liberal takeover.
Yeah, it’s easy to trust powerless things. The fact that you think that indicates they’d be trustworthy with power is a bit concerning, but I am genuinely enjoying your idealism.
Maybe look that stuff up sometimes, though it could damage your faith and maybe you prefer the bliss of ignorance.
You really like the “this will never happen, give up and embrace evil lolololol” mentality don’t you. Ever heard of doing things step by stepping while working towards a greater goal?
Did you know we deposed a dictator in my country? He went to the USA to ask for help in a coup and even gather multiple internal diplomats to clean up the situation after the coup happened.
Oh. People are trying. I recently, will add briefly, watched a documentary on the Titanic where they had a guy from TT stating facts because his authority is that he’s “The Titanic guy”. Turned it off seconds after I stopped laughing.
The key line here is “abridging the freedom of speech”
I don’t like TikTok. I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories. However, I think it’s an equally dangerous step to let the government decide to limit or remove access to a foreign social media site. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.
while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.
They're not limiting access. They're saying you can't install the application on a government-supplied device. Want TikTok on your personal phone - great, go ahead! Want to watch TikTok in a browser on your government device - hey, that's fine! Install a piece of software that's really aggressive in the data it collects on a government device - nope!
If blocking a website on government devices/networks is a violation of free speech why are you just now sounding the alarm? Why didn’t you sound the alarm when I wasn’t allowed to browse reddit on my government laptop? The government blocking access on personal devices/networks is a violation, blocking access on government networks/devices is business as usual.
Add comment