throwaway199956

Recent weeks frankly not a good show by US Judiciary.

The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges didn't want to indict an on coming president.

And on this particular matter, Supreme Court 'unsigned' opinion felt confused even though it is termed unanimous.

At places it seemed to complain of the paucity of time/scope to consider all parts of the matter more seriously, and at the end even expressed ambivalence about what is going to happen next even.

Frankly bit of shoddy-ness/confused signalling from Judiciary and Supreme Court.

Perhaps it would have been better to just delay the matter by issuing an interim extension and reconsider the issue taking into account the views of the new administration.

This was no urgent matter that a few days delay would have mattered.

That is exactly what the government has not done all these years. Why be tight-lipped if there is solid evidence and data, its not some issue of nuclear weapons/military-strategy.

Did the supreme court examine government as to, if this was the only path available to achieve what it wanted?

Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient to deal with the issue(perhaps not so easily as by fiat as in the new law, but requiring stricter standards of trial and evidence), necessitating this new law?

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal, it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.

What this line argued in the Supreme Court in the oral arguments or in the opinion or in the lower court?

Obviously TT could not have brought this up, but the court could have brought it up while examining the government.

Why only to the Congress, does not the American people have a right to know? Why be tight-lipped about it, certainly it's not some military or nuclear technology matter.

The question is if the new law was necessary, if there is case that to be made TikTok has violated other existing law, but government merely has to prove so?

Was government trying to take a shortcut to a TikTok ban which could have been achieved through current law but which needs greater burden of proof/evidence from government.

Did SCOTUS go into the question of the need for such a law considering all other laws which might apply in the situation, just so that government can achieve the same ban without having to prove that TikTok has broken an applicable law.

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way about it.

Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it.

Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not breaking any serious provisions of law this law has been made.

It feels like a sleight of hand from government to ban something that has broke no (serious) law (yet).

Did the SCOTUS go into the necessity of having this law to achieve what government wanted, if existing laws would have sufficed, provided that government met the standards of evidence/proof that those laws demanded.

If not, it is as if government wanted a 'short-cut' to a TikTok ban and SCOTUS approved it, rather than asking government to go the long way to it.

Soviet Life Magazine for example was printed and sold in the US by the Soviet Embassy.

As far as first ammendment it does make no difference if it is print or voice or online service.

That is not the point of the First Ammendment, it is that Government cannot stop anyone from saying/printing/dissemination of content.

So question if government has power to do so.

Can they ban RT? Or even the BBC, if the government found it wise to do so?

What does intermediate scrutiny mean?

Like such cannot be enforced for example against foreign radio stations or print publications.

Then how do court justify that it stands in the case of an app.

Are they banning any TV channels from hostile countries? RT, for example can be watched by Americans without restriction.