618
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:

  1. The law inflicts punishment.
  2. The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
  3. Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.

And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.

Also, the tiktok ban was passed alongside a bill outlawing sale of data to China, Iran, Russia, etc. So if FB is still selling to China it is also illegal.

[-] Buttons@programming.dev -2 points 2 months ago

You mean the CCP is not an "individual or group"?

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read. All three are required conditions.

The parent company don't have judicial protections. They're based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn't being punished, they're explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3

The bill doesn't target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.

unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down

A rule that applies exclusively to the US subsidiary of TikTok.

It would be akin to passing a law that says @finitebanjo must have all of his possessions seized in the next nine months, because he took money from the Canadian government. Canada isn't the target of the legislation and the scope of the legislation isn't universal - it's only assigning a punishment to a single domestic resident - and entirely on the grounds that the current chief executive doesn't like Justin Trudeau.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo's friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose's friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.

The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
618 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
4592 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS