US government appeals injunction barring TikTok download ban

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2020
The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday began the appeals process of a recent federal court ruling that blocked the Trump administration's attempt to ban downloads of popular social media app TikTok.

TikTok


Judge Carl Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an order issued on Oct. 28 partially granted a preliminary injunction against a TikTok download prohibition sought by Trump and executed by the Commerce Department. The ruling did not extend to pending restrictions that will prohibit American internet carriers from handling TikTok's traffic on Nov. 12.

As expected, the government pushed back against Nichols' judgment on Thursday with a notice of appeal, reports The New York Times. In a statement following the initial ruling, the Commerce Department said it would comply with the injunction, but maintained Trump's order is "fully consistent with the law and promotes legitimate national security interests."

TikTok is facing a multifaceted attack from the Trump administration, which views the Chinese-owned company as a threat to national security. In September, the Commerce Department announced plans to pull the app from U.S. app stores including Apple's App Store on Sept. 20. That deadline was extended by one week following word that TikTok had reached a tentative deal to sell its U.S. assets to Oracle, a requirement for survival mandated by a Trump executive order.

As the app worked to finalize terms of the arrangement, it filed a request for an emergency injunction that resulted in last month's ruling.

Terms of the deal specify Oracle and its investment partners will receive a 20% stake in an American TikTok entity. The remaining 80% is to be held by current owner ByteDance. Oracle will also be granted access to TikTok's source code to ensure the software does not include backdoors, an important consideration as the government believes the app leaks sensitive user data to China.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    The court needs to demand the government produce its evidence claiming TikTok is a threat to National Security.

    So far with these attacks they have not been able to come up with even a shred of evidence to back their allegations.  Just allegations piled on top of allegations.   Joseph Goebbels called it the "Big Lie" and used it effectively to rally the masses.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 2 of 15
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    cat52joerock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.

    When a person violates the law the courts need to step in to protect corporate and personal rights.  It's why we have laws, Constitutions and Courts.   This one is just doing its job.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 

    But then that's the point:   The only security risk is to Trump because he does not want another Tulsa episode where TikTok users humiliated him so badly.  He needs to be able to control 'the message'.    Plus, he likely has a deal with Zuckerberg:  "You support me.   I'll support you".  In this case, Zuckerberg runs Trump's ads filled with lies and distortions and Trump shuts down Zuckerberg's competitors.

    Trump has normalized the practice of making false statements and a free press and a free social media don't support his lies.  He can't tolerate that.   He won't tolerate that.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,255member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 

    Plus, he likely has a deal with Zuckerberg:  "You support me.   I'll support you".  In this case, Zuckerberg runs Trump's ads filled with lies and distortions and Trump shuts down Zuckerberg's competitors.

    In June  Facebook took down ads run by Trump’s re-election campaign for violating its policy against organized hate. In August Facebook removed a post by Trump for violating its coronavirus misinformation policies.

    Facebook's current policy is not to interfere with a candidate's own political ad, but that doesn't apply to PAC's who spread disinformation.

    Yes there are governments out there who go to extreme lengths to control the message, completely shut out any opposing views and arrest those who write or broadcast those views.

    The US and most of the West has a free media that can report without interference for the most part. While that's better IMO than a state-controlled media found in China, N.Korea, Russia, et al.  it unfortunately also allows FUD to be published by some for their own selfish reasons. But due to that same free and open media the truth eventually reveals itself which would not happen under state control. In the West we tend to trust the ability of our citizens to understand and make judgements on our leadership, while China and Russia feal their citizens would not tolerate certain policies if media was allowed to report the entire story. so for their own good they hide much of it from them.

    Trump might wish he could control our media (others in the past would have probably appreciated it too), but he can't. It's legally impossible. 

    edited October 2020
  • Reply 7 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    gatorguy said:
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 

    Plus, he likely has a deal with Zuckerberg:  "You support me.   I'll support you".  In this case, Zuckerberg runs Trump's ads filled with lies and distortions and Trump shuts down Zuckerberg's competitors.

    ...

    Facebook's current policy is not to interfere with a candidate's own political ad, but that doesn't apply to PAC's who spread disinformation.

    ...
    Yep!   Like I said:
    "[Chump] likely has a deal with Zuckerberg:  "You support me.   I'll support you".  In this case, Zuckerberg runs Trump's ads filled with lies and distortions and Trump shuts down Zuckerberg's competitors."

    And that doesn't even count legions of trained propagandists filling social media with lies, distortions and propaganda that Chump and his buddy Vladimir have trained and supported.


    edited October 2020
  • Reply 8 of 15
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 9 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.
    Might doesn't make right.
    And, Bullshit is still Bullshit.   And, a claim based on bullshit is still bullshit.  

    Chump is following the model set by Hitler and using any and every excuse to undermine the pillars of democracy in order to gain and hold power.  In this case, it is removing American's right of free speech by declaring the vehicle they use a so called "National Security risk".   Chump found that he could effectively attack almost anything using that excuse. 

    Would you feel the same if President Biden decided to shut down FauxNews because it is owned by a foreign company and therefor a "National Security risk"?   It would be within his power because, as you claim, "Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk."


  • Reply 10 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,255member
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.

    And, Bullshit is still Bullshit. 

    Chump is following the model set by Hitler...



    Ah time for "Fun with Fallacies". Today's lesson:  Reducio ad Hitlerum, better known as Godwin's Law.

    So what's Godwin's law some might ask?  The act of discrediting an opponent’s view by comparing it to something supported by Hitler or Nazism.
    The move is most often seen as a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness, as one could “invalidate” food because if Hitler ate food and Hitler was genocidist, then food can’t be good.

    The longer an internet political spat goes on the more likely that someone will stoop to invoking it. Today's player is GeorgeBMac.
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 11 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    gatorguy said:
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.

    And, Bullshit is still Bullshit. 

    Chump is following the model set by Hitler...



    Ah time for "Fun with Fallacies". Today's lesson:  Reducio ad Hitlerum, better known as Godwin's Law.

    So what's Godwin's law some might ask?  The act of discrediting an opponent’s view by comparing it to something supported by Hitler or Nazism.
    The move is most often seen as a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness, as one could “invalidate” food because if Hitler ate food and Hitler was genocidist, then food can’t be good.

    The longer an internet political spat goes on the more likely that someone will stoop to invoking it. Today's player is GeorgeBMac.

    If it looks like it, smells like it and sounds like it.   It's probably it.   Despite the false claims and excuses.
    Both Hitler and Trump gained initial power through populism and then undermined the pillars of the democracy they used to gain power in order to keep it and propagate their fascism.   In both countries, some idiots believed the bull and some even proclaimed it.   Which group are you in?
  • Reply 12 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,255member
    gatorguy said:
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.

    And, Bullshit is still Bullshit. 

    Chump is following the model set by Hitler...



    Ah time for "Fun with Fallacies". Today's lesson:  Reducio ad Hitlerum, better known as Godwin's Law.

    So what's Godwin's law some might ask?  The act of discrediting an opponent’s view by comparing it to something supported by Hitler or Nazism.
    The move is most often seen as a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness, as one could “invalidate” food because if Hitler ate food and Hitler was genocidist, then food can’t be good.

    The longer an internet political spat goes on the more likely that someone will stoop to invoking it. Today's player is GeorgeBMac.

    If it looks like it, smells like it and sounds like it.   It's probably it.   Despite the false claims and excuses.
    Both Hitler and Trump gained initial power through populism and then undermined the pillars of the democracy they used to gain power in order to keep it and propagate their fascism.   In both countries, some idiots believed the bull and some even proclaimed it.   Which group are you in?
    And Hitler ate food. So do you. I think the connection is obvious. :)
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 13 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    Shocking that a Federal court can oppose the President on a national security matter. These courts have far too much leeway to interfere.
    I totally agree if it a national security risk. 
    Since the President is, in fact, the head of national security as Commander-In-Chief, they alone determine what is a national security risk. They also have the power to unilaterally declassify classified information. Individual members of Congress cannot even do that, but Congress can declassify if a vote is held regarding Clause 11 of Rule X of the Standing Rules, which governs committees and their jurisdictions.

    And, Bullshit is still Bullshit. 

    Chump is following the model set by Hitler...



    Ah time for "Fun with Fallacies". Today's lesson:  Reducio ad Hitlerum, better known as Godwin's Law.

    So what's Godwin's law some might ask?  The act of discrediting an opponent’s view by comparing it to something supported by Hitler or Nazism.
    The move is most often seen as a sign of desperation or intellectual laziness, as one could “invalidate” food because if Hitler ate food and Hitler was genocidist, then food can’t be good.

    The longer an internet political spat goes on the more likely that someone will stoop to invoking it. Today's player is GeorgeBMac.

    If it looks like it, smells like it and sounds like it.   It's probably it.   Despite the false claims and excuses.
    Both Hitler and Trump gained initial power through populism and then undermined the pillars of the democracy they used to gain power in order to keep it and propagate their fascism.   In both countries, some idiots believed the bull and some even proclaimed it.   Which group are you in?
    And Hitler ate food. So do you. I think the connection is obvious. :)

    So once, you demonstrate that all you have are weak, bullshit deflections.  

  • Reply 14 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,255member
    George: "Likewise, its been 'proven' that ice cream causes people to drown because more people drown when people eat ice cream...." ;)
    edited October 2020
  • Reply 15 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    gatorguy said:
    George: "Likewise, its been 'proven' that ice cream causes people to drown because more people drown when people eat ice cream...." ;)

    Yes, in medicine "It's been 'proven' that ice cream causes people to drown because more people drown when people eat ice cream...." is commonly used as an example to discredit epidemiologic evidence.  
    The flip side of it is the saying "There is no evidence that jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is hazardous to your health" is used to discredit those who believe that RCTs are the only valid evidence -- since that has never been proven with an RCT.


Sign In or Register to comment.