US government appeals injunction barring TikTok download ban
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.