I'd buy that argument if it came from someone with just a little more integrity.

(3) The court used privacy as a justification for upholding a speech restriction. That is wild! That’s the inverse of so much precedent, cases like Sorrell, where a regulator tries to limit data collection and the law is struck down on First Amendment grounds. Twin Peaks, RIP David Lynch.

(2) The US government views TikTok the way the rest of the world views American firms. The Court emphasized how vulnerable TikTok is to Chinese intelligence laws. That’s how Europeans (and Indians and Brazilians and the rest of the world) feel about FISA and the Patriot Act and the CLOUD Act.

(1) It’s surprising how much the current U.S. position is at odds with earlier U.S. policy (and how much it sounds like longstanding Chinese policy). We used to say that only repressive regimes would use national security as a pretext to censor online speech. Not anymore.

agreed! I just posted this short piece, and one of the points is that for other countries, US firms look an awful lot like TikTok... www.lawfaremedia.org/article/thre...

Essays aren't Articles, Sam. Stop the gaslighting.