Regarding that Banning Tik Tok Bill they Have in the Works

[sunny225]

We knew that it wasn't what they claimed it was, right? Country Conservatives could be affected by it.


theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/03/12/hr7521-the-tiktok-ban-law-as-written-is-not-about-banning-tiktok-its-about-information-control-pdf-included/

HR7521 – The TikTok Ban Law (as written) is NOT About Banning TikTok, It’s About Information Control – pdf Included

March 12, 2024 | Sundance | 259 Comments

I swear by all that I know to be righteous and accurate, the combined willpower of the UniParty in Washington DC is not targeting TikTok from the perspective of concern over data collection. Instead, the DC system -which is to say the USIC- is using the auspices of TikTok to expand the reach of government censorship and control information.



This is a domestic information space battle, using the guise of TikTok as a baseline for justification. How do we know? You only need to look at the mechanism of the law as it is written, the compliance section, and the definitions they are using to see they are not targeting data collection. [pdf of HR7521 HERE]



If TikTok data collection was the issue, the law would be structured to ban foreign data collection. That’s not what this is. This is a law written to give the Executive Branch the power to define any platform as “foreign owned” by the service provider (even if domestic) and the substance of the content contained and/or distributed. This has to be stopped.







[Source pdf, Page 8 – HR7521]



Read the law as written through the prism of “Information Control,” not the prism of data collection. The law is designed to control information, not data collection.

more at link

[farmrbrown]

Ahhhhhh.....Very interesting.

[Ozarks Tom]

Yep, not targeted, and way too broad to just be about Tik-tok.

[sunny225]

www.theepochtimes.com/us/house-passes-bill-that-could-ban-tiktok-from-us-5606550?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport&src_src=partner&src_cmp=BonginoReport

(The House passed it. Any bets on the senate votes??)

House Passes Bill That Could Ban TikTok From US

‘TikTok’s time in the United States is over unless it ends its relationship with CCP-controlled ByteDance,’ says Rep. Mike Gallagher.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that could ban TikTok from the United States and grant the president sweeping new authorities to target foreign companies in the United States.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was passed in a bipartisan 352 to 65 vote on Wednesday. 197 Republicans and 155 Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against it. One Democrat vote “present.”

If signed into law, the bill will legally require social media giant TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company, ByteDance, or face a ban on U.S. app stores and hosting services.

The bill will now go to the Senate where, should it pass, President Joe Biden has vowed to sign it into law.
Since being introduced on March 5, the bill has sped through the congressional approval process, receiving a rare unanimous approval from the House Energy and Commerce Committee two days later.
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said at the time that the bill was necessary to combat the regime’s influence in the United States.

RELATED STORIES
Elon Musk Cites Massie Concern of Trojan Horse in TikTok Ban Bill
3/13/2024
Elon Musk Cites Massie Concern of Trojan Horse in TikTok Ban Bill
House Panel Unanimously Advances Bill That Could Ban TikTok
3/7/2024
House Panel Unanimously Advances Bill That Could Ban TikTok
“This is my message to TikTok: break up with the Chinese Communist Party or lose access to your American users,” Mr. Gallagher said in a prepared statement.
“TikTok’s time in the United States is over unless it ends its relationship with CCP-controlled ByteDance.”

Some security analysts believe that TikTok could be weaponized against American citizens through predatory surveillance practices, censorship, and the promotion of state-backed propaganda.
US House Vote on TikTok Bill

Play Video
To counter that threat, the bill would create a process for the president to classify social media apps under the influence of certain foreign nations as hazards to national security and prohibit them from operating unless they transfer ownership to American companies.

In all, the bill would allow the president to force the divestiture of any social media company with over a million users that is based in China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia.

For its part, TikTok has lambasted the decision as an assault on free speech and even directed its users to call their representatives to demand a no vote on the bill.

“This bill is an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it,” a TikTok spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “This legislation will trample the First Amendment rights of 170 million Americans and deprive 5 million small businesses of a platform they rely on to grow and create jobs.”

Criticisms
That criticism has not gone unheard, and the bill’s purpose and structure have been critiqued by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle as well.
Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) suggested that the Energy and Commerce Committee’s rush job on approval was designed to prevent hesitancy about the bill from growing. The bill, he said, was a de facto ban.

“It’s unreasonable to believe that in 180 days a buyer will be found and a deal will be formed, which will result in the company being banned,” Mr. Frost told reporters on Tuesday.
“I believe that it is an infringement upon our First Amendment rights and it violates the Constitution.”

Mr. Frost added that the bill “does not fix” the problem of data flows, as American companies like Google, Meta, and X, formerly Twitter, are still allowed to legally sell Americans’ data to data brokers, who then sell it directly to China, where the CCP may access it at any time.

Some prominent Republicans like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), meanwhile, have raised concerns that the bill would be used to insulate American companies from competing with foreign firms and could be used in the future to target platforms that host perceived enemies of the administration.

“When Tik Tok [sic] is sold, who will buy it? And why is the expectation that it will be better?” Ms. Greene said in a social media post.
“If it’s Meta, the content will be very unlikely to change, therefore all the conservatives, who think this bill will protect our children, will be greatly disappointed when it doesn’t change at all.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said on the House floor that the bill should be called the “Facebook Protection and Enhancement Act” and would positively affect Meta’s share prices if approved.

Likewise, some major think tanks have begun lobbying against the effort, which they say replicates the CCP’s authoritarian governance model.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace condemned the bill as a form of “state-sponsored forced technology transfer” that would effectively allow American corporations to steal better Chinese technology, such as ByteDance’s social media algorithm.
Proponents of the bill say that such authority is necessary to prevent foreign powers from exploiting the United States’s relatively open market economy.

To that end, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Select Committee on the CCP, said that the bill wasn’t a ban on any single application nor an affront to free speech but a choice between allegiance to the United States and China.

more at link

[Ozarks Tom]

As with any bill that "sounds" good, I'd be more concerned with what might be hidden in the last pages. I mean, when has Congress passed an act that did what they said if would? "Inflation Reduction Act"?

[sunny225]

www.racket.news/p/why-the-tiktok-ban-is-so-dangerous?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1042&post_id=142640940&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=9atnc&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Why the TikTok Ban is So Dangerous
Did they tell you the part about giving the president sweeping new powers?

It’s funny how things work.

Last year at this time, Americans overwhelmingly supported a ban on TikTok. Polls showed a 50-22% overall margin in support of a ban and 70-14% among conservatives. But Congress couldn’t get the RESTRICT Act passed.

As the public learned more about provisions in the bill, and particularly since the outbreak of hostilities in Gaza, the legislative plan grew less popular. Polls dropped to 38-27% in favor by December, and they’re at 35-31% against now.

Yet the House just passed the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” by a ridiculous 352-64 margin, with an even more absurd 50-0 unanimous push from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. What gives?

As discussed on the new America This Week, passage of the TikTok ban represents a perfect storm of unpleasant political developments, putting congress back fully in line with the national security establishment on speech. After years of public championing of the First Amendment, congressional Republicans have suddenly and dramatically been brought back into the fold. Meanwhile Democrats, who stand to lose a lot from the bill politically — it’s opposed by 73% of TikTok users, precisely the young voters whose defections since October put Joe Biden’s campaign into a tailspin — are spinning passage of the legislation to its base by suggesting it’s not really happening.

“This is not an attempt to ban TikTok, it’s an attempt to make TikTok better,” is how Nancy Pelosi put it. Congress, the theory goes, will force TikTok to divest, some kindly Wall Street consortium will gobble it up (“It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” Steve Mnuchin told CNBC), and life will go on. All good, right?

Not exactly. The bill passed in the House that’s likely to win the Senate and be swiftly signed into law by the White House’s dynamic Biden hologram is at best tangentially about TikTok.

You’ll find the real issue in the fine print. There, the “technical assistance” the drafters of the bill reportedly received from the White House shines through, Look particularly at the first highlighted portion, and sections (i) and (ii) of (3)B:

more at link

[Ozarks Tom]

This whole push is a way around the Missouri vs Biden suit that SCOTUS will hear oral arguments on next week. The suit brought by the Missouri AG would prohibit the government from censoring or in any way inhibiting speech they don't like.

Is this vague enough?:

As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.

This little website is titled Country Conservatives. We've had uncountable comments by members that argue the government's agenda on certain subjects are contrary to the Constitution. Could those be considered by our betters as "threats to the National Security"? In a Marxist's mind, yes.

If this bill was targeted at TikTox, due to it's obvious use by the CCP as an intelligence source I could understand it. But with the vagueness of it's wording it would overcome the probable result of the SCOTUS case.

The ultimate tyranny of any government is the ability to eliminate views opposing their agendas. When all we're allowed to read and hear is govspeak, we're no longer a Republic.

[sunny225]

[farmrbrown]

Mar 17, 2024 0:07:02 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

This whole push is a way around the Missouri vs Biden suit that SCOTUS will hear oral arguments on next week. The suit brought by the Missouri AG would prohibit the government from censoring or in any way inhibiting speech they don't like.

Is this vague enough?:

As written, any “website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application” that is “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the National Security of the United States” is covered.

This little website is titled Country Conservatives. We've had uncountable comments by members that argue the government's agenda on certain subjects are contrary to the Constitution. Could those be considered by our betters as "threats to the National Security"? In a Marxist's mind, yes.

If this bill was targeted at TikTox, due to it's obvious use by the CCP as an intelligence source I could understand it. But with the vagueness of it's wording it would overcome the probable result of the SCOTUS case.

The ultimate tyranny of any government is the ability to eliminate views opposing their agendas. When all we're allowed to read and hear is govspeak, we're no longer a Republic.

Yep. I mean what kind of person could think a Bill called the "Patriot Act" would be bad for Americans, right?

But I wasn't sure myself how the SCOTUS would view this so I looked at a few historical cases. In fact this is one of the first issues the Court wrestled with, The Alien and Sedition Act.

www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20a%20Federalist,imprisonment%2C%20and%20deportation%20during%20wartime.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

The Alien and Sedition Acts were a set of four laws enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the United States. The Naturalization Act increased the requirements to seek citizenship, the Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act gave the president additional powers to detain non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act criminalized false and malicious statements about the federal government. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act expired after a set number of years, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect.



The Acts were highly controversial at the time, especially the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act, which was signed into law by Adams on July 14, 1798,[36] was hotly debated in the Federalist-controlled Congress and passed only after multiple amendments softening its terms, such as enabling defendants to argue in their defense that their statements had been true. Still, it passed the House only after three votes and another amendment causing it to automatically expire in March 1801.[34] They continued to be loudly protested and were a major political issue in the election of 1800. Opposition to them resulted in the also-controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Upon assuming the presidency, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those still serving sentences under the Sedition Act,[24]: 231  and Congress soon repaid their fines.[37]

Our fledgling country didn't like the way monarchies handled free speech but they weren't ready to unleash the power of universal civil liberties either.

After reviewing 200+ years of SCOTUS precedents, I still wouldn't take any bets on how they would rule though, lol. 
My best guess is they would continue to try and strike a balance by putting limits on what NON-citizens can say or do here. As a result I think the same loophole will be found as in the ownership of property by foreigners. Meaning, they will probably draw the line at restricting Free Speech of domestic companies and allow it only on foreign owned ones. 
The way around it?
Find a Chinese-American citizen here and transfer the ownership to him or her. Then continue your business as usual.  

[sunny225]

josephsansone.substack.com/p/did-house-republicans-and-democrats

Did House Republicans and Democrats Commit Treason, Again?

A common denominator of all totalitarian societies is that they censor information. They label it heretical or misinformation, and simply prohibit its distribution. Up until 2020, this was something associated with countries like North Korea, Communist China, the former Soviet Union, NAZIs, and oppressive countries around the world. The West cherished its tradition of free thought and the free exchange of ideas. It appears today, this tradition of freedom of speech, is being targeted.
...

Under the guise of stopping Communist China from having influence over Americans, House Republicans and Democrats appear to be committing treason, again. House Republicans passed H.R. 7521, legislation to give Biden the power to decide what apps go on your phone. That’s right, Republicans think it is a good idea to give Biden the power to decide what apps and websites you view.

...

In a Star Chamber fashion, it would appear that not only is the government seeking to decide what applications to allow on your phone, it is seeking to decide what websites you will be allowed to visit. It is very clear that this censorship of information will not be limited to foreign companies or entities and will end up being applied to anything the current regime decides is a national security threat. In short, anyone that tells the truth about the emerging totalitarian state will be deemed a national security threat and their website or information will be censored.
...

This legislation is not really about Tic Tok. In the near term, it appears to be about finding a way to censor X.com as well as blocking access to Yandex.com. Yandex.com is the Russian search engine that is quickly becoming the search engine of choice for many liberty activists when doing research. When it comes to local services, Google is still king. Although, when it comes to finding uncensored information, especially about Covid, or Covid 19 bioweapon injections, and anything associated with The Great Reset, Yandex.com is superior.



That’s right, you have to use a Russian search engine to find American websites with information that you are looking for. Makes sense, right?
more at link