Considering the number of threads on this forum featuring TikTok one way or another, I think I should offer my own take on one of Trump's latest executive orders addressing the TikTok's U.S. operations. This is also an indirect response to @PM_ME_STRIPPERS and @youthislife
You guys know I hate TikTok. The vast majority of TikTok content offers little or no intellectual value. And I do think there are legitimate questions about TikTok's cybersecurity practices and ByteDance's questionable relationship with Chinese authorities. But that's not the issue here.
The issue here is whether the White House should have the power to shut down an entire social media platform via executive order. The Trump administration has done so under the guise of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act; an unusual move which means he's essentially declared TikTok a "national emergency".
What the Trump administration didn't do is run the TikTok issue through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee codified into existence by Congress during the Reagan administration.
IMO, there are some free speech issues surrounding the Trump administration's executive order. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously opined in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) that "to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights". A categorical restriction on expressive conduct -- banning an entire social media app -- should raise some eyebrows, at least.
If TikTok users do sue the Trump administration, they would likely try to argue that Trump's actions are "viewpoint discriminatory" (some foids are arguing that Trump is merely attempting to retaliate against anti-Trump videos), and should, therefore, be held to "strict scrutiny" -- a standard of judicial review that the Trump administration would, at this point, probably fail. Indeed, if the federal courts decide that Trump's executive order is content-neutral -- the Trump administration has better chances at prevailing under "intermediate scrutiny", but that doesn't address another First Amendment issue: access.
Even if TikTok's U.S. operations were shut down, a U.S. government demand that ISPs restrict access to a TikTok server outside of the United States would be very dangerous; it's extremely unlikely that the federal judiciary would willingly give the executive branch the power to build a China-style Great Firewall. The First Amendment not only protects expressive conduct, but also protects against censorship.
What I'm ultimately concerned about isn't TikTok, but the legal precedent that could adversely affect American incels' ability to engage in protected speech right here on this forum. See, American members account for an overwhelming plurality here on incels.co. Here's the million-dollar question: should a potential Harris administration have the power to shut down access to forums like ours with no more standing than an executive order, and expect judicial deference whilst doing so? Indeed, it is an aspect of executive overreach that the soycucks on r/CuckTear would most likely welcome. Our opponents are already laying the groundwork for censorship against incels, with one hyperbolic statement after another suggesting that our mere participation on his forum is tantamount to "terrorism" and other forms of criminal conduct.
The answer is, and should be, no. The vast majority of individuals on this forum engage in lawful conduct -- crude and juvenile, perhaps -- but lawful and protected. And as the Supreme Court rightly noted in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the overbreadth doctrine suggests the government "may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter."
If you think that this is meant to be a defence of TikTok and the femoids and cucks who use this cancerous app, you are highly mistaken. As China's authoritarian regime seeks to expand its influence, the Trump administration rightfully scrutinized TikTok and ByteDance's operations and data-handling procedures. However, this does not mean that the Trump administration should wantonly disregard Americans' First Amendment right to access social media by relying on an unnaturally deferential interpretation of executive authority. Instead, the White House should've addressed ByteDance's U.S. subsidiary through CFIUS in order to build upon the government's legal foundation in any future proceeding. Not doing so could set a dangerous precedent for everyone -- especially the incel community.
You guys know I hate TikTok. The vast majority of TikTok content offers little or no intellectual value. And I do think there are legitimate questions about TikTok's cybersecurity practices and ByteDance's questionable relationship with Chinese authorities. But that's not the issue here.
The issue here is whether the White House should have the power to shut down an entire social media platform via executive order. The Trump administration has done so under the guise of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act; an unusual move which means he's essentially declared TikTok a "national emergency".
What the Trump administration didn't do is run the TikTok issue through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee codified into existence by Congress during the Reagan administration.
IMO, there are some free speech issues surrounding the Trump administration's executive order. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously opined in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) that "to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights". A categorical restriction on expressive conduct -- banning an entire social media app -- should raise some eyebrows, at least.
If TikTok users do sue the Trump administration, they would likely try to argue that Trump's actions are "viewpoint discriminatory" (some foids are arguing that Trump is merely attempting to retaliate against anti-Trump videos), and should, therefore, be held to "strict scrutiny" -- a standard of judicial review that the Trump administration would, at this point, probably fail. Indeed, if the federal courts decide that Trump's executive order is content-neutral -- the Trump administration has better chances at prevailing under "intermediate scrutiny", but that doesn't address another First Amendment issue: access.
Even if TikTok's U.S. operations were shut down, a U.S. government demand that ISPs restrict access to a TikTok server outside of the United States would be very dangerous; it's extremely unlikely that the federal judiciary would willingly give the executive branch the power to build a China-style Great Firewall. The First Amendment not only protects expressive conduct, but also protects against censorship.
What I'm ultimately concerned about isn't TikTok, but the legal precedent that could adversely affect American incels' ability to engage in protected speech right here on this forum. See, American members account for an overwhelming plurality here on incels.co. Here's the million-dollar question: should a potential Harris administration have the power to shut down access to forums like ours with no more standing than an executive order, and expect judicial deference whilst doing so? Indeed, it is an aspect of executive overreach that the soycucks on r/CuckTear would most likely welcome. Our opponents are already laying the groundwork for censorship against incels, with one hyperbolic statement after another suggesting that our mere participation on his forum is tantamount to "terrorism" and other forms of criminal conduct.
The answer is, and should be, no. The vast majority of individuals on this forum engage in lawful conduct -- crude and juvenile, perhaps -- but lawful and protected. And as the Supreme Court rightly noted in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the overbreadth doctrine suggests the government "may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter."
If you think that this is meant to be a defence of TikTok and the femoids and cucks who use this cancerous app, you are highly mistaken. As China's authoritarian regime seeks to expand its influence, the Trump administration rightfully scrutinized TikTok and ByteDance's operations and data-handling procedures. However, this does not mean that the Trump administration should wantonly disregard Americans' First Amendment right to access social media by relying on an unnaturally deferential interpretation of executive authority. Instead, the White House should've addressed ByteDance's U.S. subsidiary through CFIUS in order to build upon the government's legal foundation in any future proceeding. Not doing so could set a dangerous precedent for everyone -- especially the incel community.
Last edited:
