Amendment 1...................

"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."

... it is overturned by the next presdient
... it contradicts an existing law that has been passed by Congress
... Congress passes a new law that contradicts it
... it is found to be unconstitutional

At least that is my understanding.

He really thinks he is the sovereign King of the United States and can simply rule by proclamation without any reservations or restrictions.

It seems he has been blowing these inane proclamations out his face sphincter more often lately.

Perhaps we should start mocking him with Garfield Goose.

I remember Garfield. The show was on WGN in Chicago when I was a kid.

We should refer to him.

We are not a country that abides to imperial commandments. Especially Trump's unconstitutional shakedown schemes.

was probably the bogus registrations for the Tulsa rally. But that was done totally by the users not by the service. Those kids can go anywhere.

But that's the thing, it's more hilariously bad than anything else. A search on youtube for tiktok chinese propaganda will give some videos of people showing off some good ones. There is also the who data mining thing. To be honest, I kinda expect that from any of these apps and would discourage anyone from using them. I'd doubly discourage them from using chinese or russia originated apps. But ultimately that should be up to the people, unless they can cite some pretty egregious examples of the apps being used to threaten national security (being used as backdoors to attack US infrastructure or something). Banning apps is so China-like.

but it's soooooo selective

where's the action against Russia and Facebook for helping install his incompetent ass into the White House?

Isn't Trump's EO essentially an unconstitutional bill of attainder? I'm curious what legal experts around here think of this. Is it more Trump buffoonery or something that needs to be taken seriously.

The department of justice would need to perform an investigation, then present the findings to a grand jury convened by request of Congress, which would then need to indict the company on charges. He can FINE a company if it is in violation of the US Legal Code, but again this requires due process. I would expect that most judges would throw it out because it violates first amendment protections on both free speech and freedom of the press. Were it found legal, it would give Trump a tool to close down the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC or any other news organization, simply on his signature. My suspicion is that the ACLU is already in talks with news organizations on precisely this point.

I hope Trump gets challenged soon. These EO's are obnoxious.

i prefer being spied on by our own company

and i still hate trump.

Speech, religion, association, communication ... not affected.

Now, I can see a Commerce Clause violation--or a violation of the clause that makes international trade treaties/regulations the domain of Congress. (Even if a recent president disputed this part of the Constitution, because Congress hadn't used that particular right and privilege for many a decade. Estoppal, dontcha know.) But not a 1A violation.

There may be some statute that delegates authority. I sort of doubt it, but since there are 10s of thousands of pages of statutes and it's hard to know what the law actually is, who the hell knows? Yeah, that's sort of a problem in anything with pretensions to be a democracy. Like the Himalayas are sort of hilly. But I digress.

The press has a shitty track record when it comes to critical thinking. I'd call it "phenomenally shitty" but they're not quite there yet. They know the Truth, irrespective of the actual facts. Half the time I think I'm listening to the pastor in the quasi-fundie church I belonged to (and left 30 years ago). I'm effing tired of being preached to by the self-righteously benighted. Which immediately sets my critical-thinking "antennae" to high sensitivity and makes me wonder what was said. Since what's reported sounds specious and self-serving. I would say "I digress" here, but I'm not. I'm merely invoking the human right to wonder what it is that the press is misrepresenting and trying to manipulate me into believing.

At the risk of quoting Sauron: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-posed-tiktok/


So, quoting:

Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, in which any such company has any interest, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under section 1(c) of this order.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) of this section applies except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Notice that most of what the press says pretends that the text actually says, "regardless of the Constitution and law, these things are prohibited" and "the prohibition in subsection (a) ... applies absolutely in every context." They're implicitly assuming we're too stupid and craven or biased to think, "Gee, I wonder if I'm smart enough to read the actual primary document." In grad school I was told that secondary sources are great for knowing what other people think, and sometimes provide insight, but if you want to know what's said in the primary sources, by the people involved, you can't rely on other people. You have to bite the bullet, take the plunge, and actually real the primary sources and what the people involved actually said. Such a novel idea. (Why I was told this only in grad school, I don't know. Perhaps because public education didn't usually encourage this kind of thing? Or perhaps they did and I wasn't paying attention, too busy kicking the chair of the girl in front of me thinking that somehow it would make her like me?)

The EO is caveated. It's been lawyered. If the law doesn't permit the prohibition in specific instance, it's not covered by the EO. On the one hand, I can't wedge a Constitutional violation in there. On the other, it means the EO means much less than the press is ventilating about. It's more "performative" and less "transformational," and only oppressive to the extent that we use the words to oppress ourselves. I deny Trump that power.

their fucking hides when President Obama issued and Executive Order?

I do.. they called him a dictator!

Stupid Fucks.

But 45 days takes it to late September, making that the news item of the day rather than Covid-45. I guess a legal issues is better than death.

China is going cashless and the more common way to pay these days is either via WeChat or Alipay - cash is being more frowned upon, considered dirty even. Credit card acceptance isn't as ubiquitous as it is here in the USA. Seems like US visitors now only have Alipay as an option.

Which is actually a commercial activity, though Drump is trying to spin it as all activity. So long as money is not changing hands, then it should be protected under the First Amendment. I do believe Trump has the ability to prohibit money from changing hands, like he did with Huawei.