He’s the unofficial ambassador of Montana, and isn’t buying the TikTok ban

The Montana First Amendment: What Has It Done Recently, and What Does It Mean to Do?” Ms. Oberwetter Explained

But Ms. Oberwetter said on Wednesday, after the law was signed, that the ban infringed on the First Amendment rights of people in Montana and that the company would keep “working to defend the rights of our users.” She said on Thursday that a federal ban in 2020 did not hold up to legal scrutiny and that Montana did not have a workable plan for enacting the ban.

More than two dozen states banned the use of TikTok on government devices in recent months, after the federal government banned it. Lawmakers and intelligence officials have said TikTok, because of its ownership, could put sensitive user data into the hands of the Chinese government. They have also argued that the app could be used to spread propaganda. TikTok says that it has never been asked to provide, nor has it provided, any U.S. user data to the Chinese government.

“Montana has no ability to give itself the power to legislate what it believesshould be the United States’ foreign policy or its national security interests, nor may it ban an entire forum for communication based on its perception that some speech shared through that forum, though protected by the First Amendment, is Montana can not ban people from watching or posting to TikTok and the Wall Street Journal because of who owns them, rather than because of what they publish.

Some of these challenges have been seen to cause real-world harm, but some gained infamy in part due to the warnings of outsiders. “Cooking chicken in NyQuil,” for instance, was a viral joke that only began trending more broadly when the Food and Drug Administration amplified it with a bulletin. TikTok is not the only place where people do stupid things online. And Montana lawmakers aren’t banning YouTube or Facebook… because protecting speech you find distasteful or dangerous is a pretty key element of the First Amendment.

Throwing objects at moving automobiles, taking excessive amounts of medication, lighting a mirror on fire and then attempting to extinguish it using only one’s body parts, inducing unconsciousness through oxygen deprivation, cooking chicken in NyQuil, pouring hot wax on a user’s face, attempting to break an unsuspecting passerby’s skull by tripping him or her into landing face first into a hard surface, placing metal objects in electrical outlets, swerving cars at high rates of speed, smearing human feces on toddlers, licking doorknobs and toilet seats to place oneself at risk of contracting coronavirus, attempting to climb stacks of milkcrates, shooting passersby with air rifles, loosening lug nuts on vehicles, and stealing utilities from public places.

A lawsuit against Montana’s bill that punishes app stores for violating the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause in a state that isn’t

This has been debated for years, and the answer is still “nobody knows.” The introduction claims that TikTok gathers significant information from its users, accessing data against their will to share with the People’s Republic of China. But while there’s a strong argument TikTok could share such data, we don’t know if that’s actually happening. Until journalists, intelligence officials, and / or whistleblowers release new details, that probably won’t change.

This week, a lawsuit was filed against the Montana law. It argues that Montana is depriving state residents of a forum for sharing and receiving speech, violating their First Amendment rights. It also argues that SB 419 violates the Commerce Clause by effectively restricting interstate commerce. The law is not always in compliance with federal sanctions powers.

The law specifies that no penalties apply to users of TikTok. But app store operators and TikTok itself could face fines of $10,000 per violation per day, with an individual violation defined as “each time that a user accesses TikTok, is offered the ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download TikTok.”

This is the beginning of a new kind of internet where states put digital barriers in the name of safety and security. The law won’t kick in until it comes into effect. Here’s what’s going on.

Soon enough, it is going to be more government control. It’s going to be a huge loss for the freedom of speech, press, and media. And that’s going to lead to far worse problems than this ever needed to be.

Defending the Montana Social Media Social Media Law against Tech Startups Using a User Name and Social Media Account, and Comment on a Statement by Poole

Who is he? Christian W. Poole is a 20-year-old born and bred Montanan. He’s a merchandiser for Pepsi by day, but Poole has also amassed a hefty social media following, mainly on TikTok.

NetChoice, a trade group that counts TikTok as a member and has sued in the past to block state laws targeting tech companies, also said in a statement that the ban violated the Constitution. Krista Chavez said that NetChoice did not currently have plans to challenge the law.

Ramya Krishnan is a lawyer at the Knight First Amendment Institute and she said Americans have the right to access certain social media platforms. Ms. Krishnan said that Montana would need to demonstrate that its privacy and security concerns were real in order to justify a ban.