Taps Coogan – March 15th, 2024
Enjoy The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
Well, my plan to step back from this site lasted a day. I love running this site so I am going to try to keep it going. I don’t exactly know what that means yet. There will be some changes, I have less free time, so there will probably be fewer articles written by me and hopefully more news links. I’ll discuss changes later. On to the article:
Despite a lot of glowing coverage coming from parts of the supposedly small-government ‘conservative’ media and political class, the bill recently passed by the House to ‘ban’ TikTok represents a sweeping new power for the President to ban apps/websites at his discretion.
Despite many inaccurate/irrelevant takes from the likes of the Citizen’s Free Press, The National Pulse, Raheem Kassam, Peter Navarro, and others on the right claiming that the bill is not a threat to Americans’ freedom of speech or their freedom to read and watch what they want, or claims that it only applies to TikTok, I have actually read the bill. They are wrong.
It is short, easy to understand, and sweeping. You should read it too.
Let’s be totally clear as to what it does.
It allows the President/Attorney General, at his discretion to ban, or force that it be sold to new owners, almost any website or application that has more than one million views per month and features some sort of user generated content. User generated content could be as simple as a comment section or the ability to share messages/files PRIVATELY with another user (think Whatsapp, Signal, an encrypted email service, etc…). Essentially every remotely popular media site, blog, social media app, video game, file sharing app, email service, etc… you can think of is covered.
In order for the President/AG to block such an app/website, there are a bunch of narrowly defined attributes that have to be met that the totally irrelevant takes from the Citizens Free Press, Raheem Kassam, Peter Navarro, etc… focus on.
Those takes are totally irrelevant because the bill also allows the President/AG to ban any such app/site that meets the following simpler criteria: The app/site, or its owners or operators, is “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” as determined by the President/AG, where the “foreign person or entity” is from an adversarial country, as determined by the President/AG, and where the site poses a national security threat as determined by… the President/AG.
Not only does the bill apply to the site/app in question but to any hosting services, software engineer, and anything/anyone that works on, maintains, or distributes the app/site. It would become de facto banned to have anything to do with such an app/site and nearly impossible for Americans to legally access it unless it was sold to new owners.
So what would it take to ban X/Twitter under this bill?
The President/AG would have to determine that Elon Musk, or any other significant/controlling owner, is “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity.” i.e. being influenced by the Russians, and could interfere in an election.
That’s it!
No trial, no convictions, no due process.
Musk would then be stuck trying to prove, after the fact, to a political DC Judge who hates him, that he isn’t ‘foreign directed,’ a term that is undefined by the bill, presumably without being able to see or challenge the classified sources in the ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ dossier presented against him by the government. Oh, and Musk would only have 90 days to make the challenge in court.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a bill that just secured a near unanimity of GOP votes in the House and has backing of prominent ‘conservative’ voices. Stupid is as stupid does…
Would you like to be notified when we publish a new article on The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
It seems the only issue you raise is with Sec.2(g)(1)(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B). If that was struck from the bill would you have any objection to it?
Good question. Sec.2(g)(1)(C) is be a show stopper. Sec.2(g)(1)(B) less than majority ownership is pretty hard to justify IMO. With out it, honestly, I don’t know. There is something about the entire premise that I have a hard time with. I really don’t like TikTok and would prefer if people didn’t use it. And I am entirely anti-CCP and anti-communist. Nonetheless, should the President get to make a more or less unilateral decision to ban foreign companies (or domestic ones with minority foreign ownership, or domestic ones with a dual-citizen leader, etc, etc…). Probably not. What do you think?