offered too high a risk of foreign surveillance and propaganda
“That’s sort of a paternalistic argument. These people don’t know what they’re doing … so we need to say ‘Ban TikTok’ to keep citizens from exercising certain liberties or rights they may have.”
no evidence of legitimate national security risks.
“extraordinary and unprecedented” measure was based on “nothing more than unfounded speculation.” T
. In July, a group of academics in Texas also sued their state over the ban on state-issued devices, on constitutional grounds.
But Molloy pressed the state to answer what evidence it had to back its claims, questioning why Montana stood alone in banning the app for public use. “Does that seem a little strange to you?”
comparing the state to someone in a marching band walking out of step
“teach China a lesson.”
“Is there some prohibition for a legislature enacting legislation that may not have any factual basis but is just an opinion of the law enforcement people or some other entity?” Molloy said. “Do they actually have to have facts to make legislation, or are they free to do whatever they want if it’s within … the Constitution?”
TikTok’s lawyers cited past legal rejections, including of regulations targeting violent video games
Glasp is a social web highlighter that people can highlight and organize quotes and thoughts from the web, and access other like-minded people’s learning.