We don’t know really. From perusing BlueSky about the case, the media and legal experts reviewing the oral arguments aren’t in agreement where the Supreme Court is leaning on the Texas age verification law’s constitutionality.
They could have stayed the deadline to review the law’s constitutionality further. The only reason they had to justify hearing it on a rushed schedule was a change of administrations, since it was the Biden administration that held oversight over its implementation under the deadline. Had Biden not been forced out of the presidential race and won reelection, the Supreme Court could have justified staying implementation to hear it on a normal timeline.
If someone wants to think the worst, it’s not your job to dictate they can’t. If the past year has taught us anything, expecting the worst makes more sense than expecting the best.
“What Kavanaugh and others seemed to be doing, again (because it happened in TikTok by not issuing an injunction to give it time to hear the case properly), was trying to short circuit the normal path a constitutional challenge takes.”
In what sense here, though? The TikTok case was a clear case of short-circuiting a constitutional challenge since it took nearly one month between accepting the case and validating the law on intermediate scrutiny without properly addressing some of the core issues.
The Supreme Court decided to hear this case in July, so the outcome here won’t be a matter of judicial rushing, but whether the “protect the children” moral panic behind age verification laws is validated by five or more of the judges, over reaffirming First Amendment protections established in two prior rulings. If they rule wrong for the second consecutive 1A case, we shouldn’t trust that the court will uphold other rights, especially the ones which Trump and his lackeys decide to go after. Worse, it’ll give MAGA lawmakers reason to ban porn as Project 2025 sets out to do.
We really need to stop being the doomposter police around here.
Anyway, Zuck announced the move of Meta’s trust and safety team to Texas, when it was already split between Texas and California for years and the California staff isn’t going anywhere. That’s like announcing you were named Super Bowl MVP, when you’re a second-stringer who traveled with the rest of the team but didn’t even play in the game: a pointless ego-stroking move (it’s just a difference of whose ego is being stroked).
Thing is, even though having TikTok in their app stores is financially beneficial to them, Apple and Google won’t fight, because of the authoritarianism brought about by some of the China hawks in Congress who backed the law in the first place. NetChoice would have fought on their and TikTok’s behalf, but Steve Scalise all but threatened them with investigations based on “disloyalty to the U.S.” if they continued associating with ByteDance (also an act of jawboning), which weakened ByteDance’s advantage in fighting the law as well as making it impossible for Apple and Google to fight their compelled enforcement of PAFACA without Congressional retaliation.
Thing is Biden and Trump’s word didn’t matter. Biden thought (wrongly) his verbal commitment to non-enforcement during his final day as president was legally binding, when only invoking the 90-day extension in the law would have allayed Apple and Google’s concerns about excessive fines. Biden and Trump both pulled “trust me, bros” here, ignorant that only the extension clause in the actual law would have given them assurance that they won’t be held liable, since they legally could host TikTok and other ByteDance apps without consequence.
I saw media reports pointing out that Trump’s vow of non-enforcement wouldn’t be enough to assure Apple and Google; but it was obvious Biden’s word wouldn’t matter without immediate legal action, which is why despite ultimately taking Trump’s word and restarting TikTok’s services 14 hours after shutting down (and a couple of its other apps over the next two days), ByteDance tried to force Biden to delay the ban, which he should have done, since that’s the only way its apps would have remained available.
This is why the doomer police in the comments are wrong. I fully expected the Supreme Court to screw up this ruling, given the limited time it had to review it. (New York Times Co. v. United States aka the Pentagon Papers case was adjudicated in five days, but the justices back then did much better analysis of the natsec claims it rejected compared to this case.)
I, however, believed it would stay enforcement to allow TikTok to remain operational to avoid disruption and resulting damage to the platform, especially in regards to its valuation; but in refusing to do that, they unwittingly handed ByteDance a rhetorical win against the government’s claim that it is not a ban, but a forced divestiture by allowing it to take effect without regard to what Trump might do (and I fully believe he’ll screw up the process of finding a buyer, assuming ByteDance sells, which I doubt, and they’d be better off splitting it in two with a restructuring of its existing ownership on the international spinoff than entertaining offers from whatever billionaire who’ll mess up the essence of the company).
Elena Kagan’s decision to sign on to the opinion is hypocritical because, CIIW, there was a case two years ago where she wrote an opinion pointing out how ownership changes to a social media platform can impact the editorial content. Forcing ByteDance to give up TikTok under duress would do just that, especially if the buyer employs less restrictive moderation practices (a la X/Twitter or what Meta is implementing) or starts to limit certain types of content.
“Campaigns could bully pollsters into only releasing favorable numbers or keeping unflattering results quiet. The public would be deprived of an important source of impartial information about races.”
Realistically, it might cause pollsters to refuse to publish ANY polling to the general public, which in a sense would also result in political candidates flying blind with an incomplete picture of their race at any given moment.
“Like when they simply shut down the entirety of the Comedy Central archives[…]”
Correction:
* 1) That was Paramount’s doing, Comedy Central hasn’t had ownership ties to Warner Bros. Discovery since its predecessor Time Warner sold HBO’s 50% stake in the network to Viacom (predecessor to the current Paramount Global) in 2004.
* 2) The link within that sentence also directs to a previous article on Cartoon Network shuttering its website and redirecting it to Max, which happened around the time Paramount purged archived streaming content from Comedy Central’s website in a similar redirection of that network’s content exclusively to Paramount+.
If 2024 has taught us anything, Democrats aren’t great at protecting free speech, either.
Nearly every Democratic Senator voted in favor of the Kids Online Safety Act, ignoring criticism against the bill from civil liberties advocates and even children who were brought to the Capitol to express their opposition to it that it would lead to online censorship, especially if Trump got elected since the bill was modified to shift the “duty of care” provisions from state AGs (most of which are Republicans) to FTC, based on whatever definition of material the government deems harmful to kids they apply (including its potential to be abused by a Trump administration as part of the GOP’s culture wars against anti-racism, abortion and transgender issues).
A large number of Democrats joined the vast majority of Republicans to pass the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which, come January 19 (barring Supreme Court intervention, since the D.C. Circuit Court panel’s review of the facial constitutional issues surrounding the law was inadequate compared to what other judges undertook in the two other TikTok-related laws), will result in a legally sanctioned mass violation of the speech and expression of 170 million Americans, based on speculative national security claims and apparent retaliation against legitimate criticism of a foreign war that the U.S. funded, by shutting down a major social media platform. Many of them failed to realize that they likely inadvertently helped advance a goal of Project 2025, all but a few (like Jared Moskowitz and bill co-author Raja Krishnamoorthi, who both advocated for banning TikTok outright) believing the law would lead to a divestiture of TikTok, when it was clear Republicans wanted to ban it.
52 House Democrats joined Republicans to vote in favor of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would have allowed the government to strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed to be supporting “terrorism”, which critics feared would disproportionately target pro-Palestinian groups (whom quite a few Democrats scrutinized for their support of Palestinian civilians that became collateral damage in Israel’s campaign against Hamas, in some ways highlighting latent anti-Palestinian sentiment among the centrist/Blue Dog wing). They failed to see how it could be weaponized against any dissent until Trump (who made clear during his campaign that his administration would weaponize criticism of him and Israel) got elected, resulting in support among Dem Reps dropping to just 15 members when it came up for a revote a week later.
Given that there’s only one week left of the Congressional session, KOSA would only be passed under a reconciliation bill, which Blumenthal and Blackburn unsuccessfully tried last year. You know he’s going to try again when Republicans take control of the Senate in January.
I’d reword “when Richard Blumenthal talks about tech policy, you know he’s lying,” to “when Richard Blumenthal talks about tech policy, you know he’s doesn’t understand or give a damn about the consequences of his policies.”
That’s what I was getting at. Just because Among Us is considered age-appropriate for even older elementary-age children, doesn’t mean it’s not going to appeal to teen and adult gamers. I know that wasn’t Tim’s intent to imply otherwise by highlighting the ESRB and Common Sense Media ratings.
Among Us isn’t a “children’s game” (just because it was rated E10+, which means for “everyone 10 and up”, doesn’t mean it’s played mostly by kids)… there’s a lot of adults who play it. I’ve seen a few Twitch streamers who have done group “let’s plays” of it.
The fact that people (and the media, apparently) still don’t understand “correlation ≠ causation” is mind-boggling. The whole “let’s blame violent video games for real-world violence” thing (despite little evidence that they do contribute to people committing violent acts) is what caused California to pass a law banning the sale of video games containing violent imagery that was ruled unconstitutional in the mid-2000s. Project 2025 literally includes a passage supporting a reprisal of such a ban.
Ginsburg’s misinterpretation of the decision he cited only serves as the dangerous precedent for such actions as long as it’s not challenged. That’s why the Supreme Court needs to take up TikTok v. Garland and, at least, reject Ginsburg’s notion that ulterior motives guiding the creation or passage of legislation extends to legislative/regulatory actions with First Amendment implications. His argument ignores decades of First Amendment precedent that have established discrimination of speech CAN be judged against the legality of federal, state and local laws.
But it has repercussions down the line. Suggesting courts can’t weigh content/speaker/viewpoint discrimination against even a potentially constitutional legislative or regulatory action (such as with lawmakers saying they didn’t like TikTok hosting content about sensitive political issues like the War in Gaza) risks serving as a greenlight for Trump and his minions to justify in court that such actions pertaining to speech they dislike are under the government’s constitutional authority to make, especially under natsec considerations. Autocrats regularly abuse natsec as a basis for justifying restrictions on speech and expression to suppress dissent.
An interesting connection to this story is that DC Circuit Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg, whose ruling mirrors that of something from a MAGA judge out of the Fifth Circuit than the libertarian he allegedly is, said in the TikTok v. Garland opinion that upheld the PAFACAA, that (in reference to lawmakers openly stating they supported the bill because of content they didn’t like), the law should not be struck down “on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”
However, his assessment (based on an apparent misrepresentation of an SC case dealing with a legislative action ruled to be constitutional that had nothing to do with speech) willfully ignores that First Amendment case law usually permits judgement on a law’s constitutionality if political motives tied to government-disfavored speech are at play, regardless of whether it is explicitly unconstitutional or the law (or elements thereof) would otherwise be considered constitutional. (Donald Molloy’s ruling in the TikTok v. Montana case that struck down a statewide ban of the app last year determined SB 419 failed scrutiny because of such speech-related motives.)
Ginsburg’s misreading of First Amendment case law, if upheld, would set a particularly dangerous precedent as it relates to the Trump administration’s efforts to suppress speech it disfavors, even if such actions are done within the government’s constitutional/legal authority (such as actions undertaken by the FTC).
The Senate version had certain provisions (like the “duty of care” provision being changed to transfer that responsibility from rather than state attorneys general to the FTC) watered down to (at least) temper opposition from civil liberties organizations and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
The fact it was publicly stated that the changes to the Senate bill would make it less likely for a MAGA administration to censor content they don’t like (not that it would stop them) may have played a factor in House leadership withholding approval of that version, but the fact that, even if Trump and Republicans don’t win in November, GOP attorneys general can’t sue to intimidate social media companies and search engines into censoring topics like LGBTQ+ issues and abortion might have also hurt its chances, even if they felt denying Democrats a bipartisan win on such polarizing legislation was necessary.
To point #2: You forgot about the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed with the intent to censor or force divestiture of certain foreign websites and apps (both likely impermissible under the First Amendment for the same reason the government can’t regulate ownership of other non-broadcast media) using even the most nebulous evidence of national security concerns as a basis. Some lawmakers (Romney, Lawler, Fetterman) literally indicated it was passed because of objections to content on TikTok (its main target, which the government hasn’t bothered to outline credible evidence of national security threats required to overcome the law’s clear First Amendment problems) relating to Gaza that highlighted the humanitarian crisis that the Israeli military’s actions created for Palestinian civilians and criticism of U.S. financing of the war, and whose co-author wrote an op-ed months prior calling for TikTok to be banned because of such content he found objectionable.
Considering Republicans control the House and far-right orgs like the Heritage Foundation advocated for the law, it doesn’t make sense to suggest KOSA won’t pass and make it to Biden’s desk. If the House was willing to pass PAFACA, they’d likely pass KOSA to use it for their own purposes against content and marginalized communities they don’t like if Trump wins and enacts Project 2025. The only thing stopping both laws are the courts, including the Supreme Court, where First Amendment issues are among the scant few issues that the conservative majority is decent at.
“It all began with the AT&T Time Warner and DirecTV mergers, which were a monumental disaster. AT&T spent $200 billion to acquire both thinking it would dominate the video and internet ad space. Instead, the company lost 9 million subscribers in nine years, fired 50,000 employees, closed numerous popular brands (including Mad Magazine), and stumbled around incompetently for several years before giving up. But that was just the start.
After its tactical retreat, AT&T spun off Time Warner into an entirely new company, Warner Media. Warner Media then immediately turned around and announced a blockbuster merger with Discovery, resulting in the super-creatively named Warner Brothers Discovery.”
The order of the changes in WBD’s corporate structure is jumbled. AT&T acquired DirecTV in 2014, then bought Time Warner in 2017, and renamed it WarnerMedia. Then in 2021, AT&T spun off DirecTV and U-verse into a separate company (which AT&T holds a controlling 70% share), and subsequently spun out WarnerMedia, which entered into a Reverse Morris Trust merger with Discovery Inc.
Uh-huh, sure. I doubt it stalls in the House. At this rate, once it passes the Senate (if Schumer’s putting it to a floor vote, there’s no guarantee the legislation fails once it takes place; this year seems to indicate that Congress is now choosing to ignore those who recognize the Internet is subject to First Amendment protections per Reno v. ACLU), those trying to fight KOSA’s passage should begin pivoting toward mounting legal challenges against it, since I doubt that Republicans would pass the chance to get it into law, so they can use it for the nefarious purposes they want (e.g., censoring anything LGBTQ+ or abortion related) if Trump gets elected.
We don’t know really. From perusing BlueSky about the case, the media and legal experts reviewing the oral arguments aren’t in agreement where the Supreme Court is leaning on the Texas age verification law’s constitutionality.
They could have stayed the deadline to review the law’s constitutionality further. The only reason they had to justify hearing it on a rushed schedule was a change of administrations, since it was the Biden administration that held oversight over its implementation under the deadline. Had Biden not been forced out of the presidential race and won reelection, the Supreme Court could have justified staying implementation to hear it on a normal timeline.
If someone wants to think the worst, it’s not your job to dictate they can’t. If the past year has taught us anything, expecting the worst makes more sense than expecting the best.
“What Kavanaugh and others seemed to be doing, again (because it happened in TikTok by not issuing an injunction to give it time to hear the case properly), was trying to short circuit the normal path a constitutional challenge takes.” In what sense here, though? The TikTok case was a clear case of short-circuiting a constitutional challenge since it took nearly one month between accepting the case and validating the law on intermediate scrutiny without properly addressing some of the core issues. The Supreme Court decided to hear this case in July, so the outcome here won’t be a matter of judicial rushing, but whether the “protect the children” moral panic behind age verification laws is validated by five or more of the judges, over reaffirming First Amendment protections established in two prior rulings. If they rule wrong for the second consecutive 1A case, we shouldn’t trust that the court will uphold other rights, especially the ones which Trump and his lackeys decide to go after. Worse, it’ll give MAGA lawmakers reason to ban porn as Project 2025 sets out to do.
We really need to stop being the doomposter police around here. Anyway, Zuck announced the move of Meta’s trust and safety team to Texas, when it was already split between Texas and California for years and the California staff isn’t going anywhere. That’s like announcing you were named Super Bowl MVP, when you’re a second-stringer who traveled with the rest of the team but didn’t even play in the game: a pointless ego-stroking move (it’s just a difference of whose ego is being stroked).
Thing is, even though having TikTok in their app stores is financially beneficial to them, Apple and Google won’t fight, because of the authoritarianism brought about by some of the China hawks in Congress who backed the law in the first place. NetChoice would have fought on their and TikTok’s behalf, but Steve Scalise all but threatened them with investigations based on “disloyalty to the U.S.” if they continued associating with ByteDance (also an act of jawboning), which weakened ByteDance’s advantage in fighting the law as well as making it impossible for Apple and Google to fight their compelled enforcement of PAFACA without Congressional retaliation. Thing is Biden and Trump’s word didn’t matter. Biden thought (wrongly) his verbal commitment to non-enforcement during his final day as president was legally binding, when only invoking the 90-day extension in the law would have allayed Apple and Google’s concerns about excessive fines. Biden and Trump both pulled “trust me, bros” here, ignorant that only the extension clause in the actual law would have given them assurance that they won’t be held liable, since they legally could host TikTok and other ByteDance apps without consequence. I saw media reports pointing out that Trump’s vow of non-enforcement wouldn’t be enough to assure Apple and Google; but it was obvious Biden’s word wouldn’t matter without immediate legal action, which is why despite ultimately taking Trump’s word and restarting TikTok’s services 14 hours after shutting down (and a couple of its other apps over the next two days), ByteDance tried to force Biden to delay the ban, which he should have done, since that’s the only way its apps would have remained available.
This is why the doomer police in the comments are wrong. I fully expected the Supreme Court to screw up this ruling, given the limited time it had to review it. (New York Times Co. v. United States aka the Pentagon Papers case was adjudicated in five days, but the justices back then did much better analysis of the natsec claims it rejected compared to this case.) I, however, believed it would stay enforcement to allow TikTok to remain operational to avoid disruption and resulting damage to the platform, especially in regards to its valuation; but in refusing to do that, they unwittingly handed ByteDance a rhetorical win against the government’s claim that it is not a ban, but a forced divestiture by allowing it to take effect without regard to what Trump might do (and I fully believe he’ll screw up the process of finding a buyer, assuming ByteDance sells, which I doubt, and they’d be better off splitting it in two with a restructuring of its existing ownership on the international spinoff than entertaining offers from whatever billionaire who’ll mess up the essence of the company). Elena Kagan’s decision to sign on to the opinion is hypocritical because, CIIW, there was a case two years ago where she wrote an opinion pointing out how ownership changes to a social media platform can impact the editorial content. Forcing ByteDance to give up TikTok under duress would do just that, especially if the buyer employs less restrictive moderation practices (a la X/Twitter or what Meta is implementing) or starts to limit certain types of content.
“Campaigns could bully pollsters into only releasing favorable numbers or keeping unflattering results quiet. The public would be deprived of an important source of impartial information about races.” Realistically, it might cause pollsters to refuse to publish ANY polling to the general public, which in a sense would also result in political candidates flying blind with an incomplete picture of their race at any given moment.
“Like when they simply shut down the entirety of the Comedy Central archives[…]” Correction: * 1) That was Paramount’s doing, Comedy Central hasn’t had ownership ties to Warner Bros. Discovery since its predecessor Time Warner sold HBO’s 50% stake in the network to Viacom (predecessor to the current Paramount Global) in 2004. * 2) The link within that sentence also directs to a previous article on Cartoon Network shuttering its website and redirecting it to Max, which happened around the time Paramount purged archived streaming content from Comedy Central’s website in a similar redirection of that network’s content exclusively to Paramount+.
If 2024 has taught us anything, Democrats aren’t great at protecting free speech, either. Nearly every Democratic Senator voted in favor of the Kids Online Safety Act, ignoring criticism against the bill from civil liberties advocates and even children who were brought to the Capitol to express their opposition to it that it would lead to online censorship, especially if Trump got elected since the bill was modified to shift the “duty of care” provisions from state AGs (most of which are Republicans) to FTC, based on whatever definition of material the government deems harmful to kids they apply (including its potential to be abused by a Trump administration as part of the GOP’s culture wars against anti-racism, abortion and transgender issues). A large number of Democrats joined the vast majority of Republicans to pass the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which, come January 19 (barring Supreme Court intervention, since the D.C. Circuit Court panel’s review of the facial constitutional issues surrounding the law was inadequate compared to what other judges undertook in the two other TikTok-related laws), will result in a legally sanctioned mass violation of the speech and expression of 170 million Americans, based on speculative national security claims and apparent retaliation against legitimate criticism of a foreign war that the U.S. funded, by shutting down a major social media platform. Many of them failed to realize that they likely inadvertently helped advance a goal of Project 2025, all but a few (like Jared Moskowitz and bill co-author Raja Krishnamoorthi, who both advocated for banning TikTok outright) believing the law would lead to a divestiture of TikTok, when it was clear Republicans wanted to ban it. 52 House Democrats joined Republicans to vote in favor of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would have allowed the government to strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed to be supporting “terrorism”, which critics feared would disproportionately target pro-Palestinian groups (whom quite a few Democrats scrutinized for their support of Palestinian civilians that became collateral damage in Israel’s campaign against Hamas, in some ways highlighting latent anti-Palestinian sentiment among the centrist/Blue Dog wing). They failed to see how it could be weaponized against any dissent until Trump (who made clear during his campaign that his administration would weaponize criticism of him and Israel) got elected, resulting in support among Dem Reps dropping to just 15 members when it came up for a revote a week later.
Given that there’s only one week left of the Congressional session, KOSA would only be passed under a reconciliation bill, which Blumenthal and Blackburn unsuccessfully tried last year. You know he’s going to try again when Republicans take control of the Senate in January. I’d reword “when Richard Blumenthal talks about tech policy, you know he’s lying,” to “when Richard Blumenthal talks about tech policy, you know he’s doesn’t understand or give a damn about the consequences of his policies.”
That’s what I was getting at. Just because Among Us is considered age-appropriate for even older elementary-age children, doesn’t mean it’s not going to appeal to teen and adult gamers. I know that wasn’t Tim’s intent to imply otherwise by highlighting the ESRB and Common Sense Media ratings.
Among Us isn’t a “children’s game” (just because it was rated E10+, which means for “everyone 10 and up”, doesn’t mean it’s played mostly by kids)… there’s a lot of adults who play it. I’ve seen a few Twitch streamers who have done group “let’s plays” of it. The fact that people (and the media, apparently) still don’t understand “correlation ≠ causation” is mind-boggling. The whole “let’s blame violent video games for real-world violence” thing (despite little evidence that they do contribute to people committing violent acts) is what caused California to pass a law banning the sale of video games containing violent imagery that was ruled unconstitutional in the mid-2000s. Project 2025 literally includes a passage supporting a reprisal of such a ban.
Ginsburg’s misinterpretation of the decision he cited only serves as the dangerous precedent for such actions as long as it’s not challenged. That’s why the Supreme Court needs to take up TikTok v. Garland and, at least, reject Ginsburg’s notion that ulterior motives guiding the creation or passage of legislation extends to legislative/regulatory actions with First Amendment implications. His argument ignores decades of First Amendment precedent that have established discrimination of speech CAN be judged against the legality of federal, state and local laws.
But it has repercussions down the line. Suggesting courts can’t weigh content/speaker/viewpoint discrimination against even a potentially constitutional legislative or regulatory action (such as with lawmakers saying they didn’t like TikTok hosting content about sensitive political issues like the War in Gaza) risks serving as a greenlight for Trump and his minions to justify in court that such actions pertaining to speech they dislike are under the government’s constitutional authority to make, especially under natsec considerations. Autocrats regularly abuse natsec as a basis for justifying restrictions on speech and expression to suppress dissent.
An interesting connection to this story is that DC Circuit Court Judge Douglas Ginsburg, whose ruling mirrors that of something from a MAGA judge out of the Fifth Circuit than the libertarian he allegedly is, said in the TikTok v. Garland opinion that upheld the PAFACAA, that (in reference to lawmakers openly stating they supported the bill because of content they didn’t like), the law should not be struck down “on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” However, his assessment (based on an apparent misrepresentation of an SC case dealing with a legislative action ruled to be constitutional that had nothing to do with speech) willfully ignores that First Amendment case law usually permits judgement on a law’s constitutionality if political motives tied to government-disfavored speech are at play, regardless of whether it is explicitly unconstitutional or the law (or elements thereof) would otherwise be considered constitutional. (Donald Molloy’s ruling in the TikTok v. Montana case that struck down a statewide ban of the app last year determined SB 419 failed scrutiny because of such speech-related motives.) Ginsburg’s misreading of First Amendment case law, if upheld, would set a particularly dangerous precedent as it relates to the Trump administration’s efforts to suppress speech it disfavors, even if such actions are done within the government’s constitutional/legal authority (such as actions undertaken by the FTC).
The Senate version had certain provisions (like the “duty of care” provision being changed to transfer that responsibility from rather than state attorneys general to the FTC) watered down to (at least) temper opposition from civil liberties organizations and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. The fact it was publicly stated that the changes to the Senate bill would make it less likely for a MAGA administration to censor content they don’t like (not that it would stop them) may have played a factor in House leadership withholding approval of that version, but the fact that, even if Trump and Republicans don’t win in November, GOP attorneys general can’t sue to intimidate social media companies and search engines into censoring topics like LGBTQ+ issues and abortion might have also hurt its chances, even if they felt denying Democrats a bipartisan win on such polarizing legislation was necessary.
To point #2: You forgot about the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed with the intent to censor or force divestiture of certain foreign websites and apps (both likely impermissible under the First Amendment for the same reason the government can’t regulate ownership of other non-broadcast media) using even the most nebulous evidence of national security concerns as a basis. Some lawmakers (Romney, Lawler, Fetterman) literally indicated it was passed because of objections to content on TikTok (its main target, which the government hasn’t bothered to outline credible evidence of national security threats required to overcome the law’s clear First Amendment problems) relating to Gaza that highlighted the humanitarian crisis that the Israeli military’s actions created for Palestinian civilians and criticism of U.S. financing of the war, and whose co-author wrote an op-ed months prior calling for TikTok to be banned because of such content he found objectionable. Considering Republicans control the House and far-right orgs like the Heritage Foundation advocated for the law, it doesn’t make sense to suggest KOSA won’t pass and make it to Biden’s desk. If the House was willing to pass PAFACA, they’d likely pass KOSA to use it for their own purposes against content and marginalized communities they don’t like if Trump wins and enacts Project 2025. The only thing stopping both laws are the courts, including the Supreme Court, where First Amendment issues are among the scant few issues that the conservative majority is decent at.
“It all began with the AT&T Time Warner and DirecTV mergers, which were a monumental disaster. AT&T spent $200 billion to acquire both thinking it would dominate the video and internet ad space. Instead, the company lost 9 million subscribers in nine years, fired 50,000 employees, closed numerous popular brands (including Mad Magazine), and stumbled around incompetently for several years before giving up. But that was just the start. After its tactical retreat, AT&T spun off Time Warner into an entirely new company, Warner Media. Warner Media then immediately turned around and announced a blockbuster merger with Discovery, resulting in the super-creatively named Warner Brothers Discovery.” The order of the changes in WBD’s corporate structure is jumbled. AT&T acquired DirecTV in 2014, then bought Time Warner in 2017, and renamed it WarnerMedia. Then in 2021, AT&T spun off DirecTV and U-verse into a separate company (which AT&T holds a controlling 70% share), and subsequently spun out WarnerMedia, which entered into a Reverse Morris Trust merger with Discovery Inc.
Uh-huh, sure. I doubt it stalls in the House. At this rate, once it passes the Senate (if Schumer’s putting it to a floor vote, there’s no guarantee the legislation fails once it takes place; this year seems to indicate that Congress is now choosing to ignore those who recognize the Internet is subject to First Amendment protections per Reno v. ACLU), those trying to fight KOSA’s passage should begin pivoting toward mounting legal challenges against it, since I doubt that Republicans would pass the chance to get it into law, so they can use it for the nefarious purposes they want (e.g., censoring anything LGBTQ+ or abortion related) if Trump gets elected.