https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/tech/montana-governor-tiktok/index.html

Montana governor bans TikTok


Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill Wednesday banning TikTok in the state.

Gianforte tweeted that he has banned TikTok in Montana “to protect Montanans’ personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party,” officially making it the first state to ban the social media application.

The controversial law marks the furthest step yet by a state government to restrict TikTok over perceived security concerns and comes as some federal lawmakers have called for a national ban of TikTok. But it is expected to be challenged in court.


The bill, which will take effect in January, specifically names TikTok as its target, prohibiting the app from operating within state lines. The law also outlines potential fines of $10,000 per day for violators, including app stores found to host the social media application.

Last month, lawmakers in Montana’s House of Representatives voted 54-43 to pass the bill, known as SB419, sending it to Gianforte’s desk.

In a statement to CNN, TikTok said it would push to defend the rights of users in Montana.

“Governor Gianforte has signed a bill that infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people of Montana by unlawfully banning TikTok, a platform that empowers hundreds of thousands of people across the state. We want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living, and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.”

The law comes as TikTok faces growing criticism for its ties to China. TikTok is owned by China-based ByteDance. Many US officials have expressed fears that the Chinese government could potentially access US data via TikTok for spying purposes, though there is so far no evidence that the Chinese government has ever accessed personal information of US-based TikTok users.

Shou Chew, chief executive of TikTok Inc., speaks during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, March 23, 2023. The TikTok chief executive officer plans to tell Congress his app does more to protect young users than rival social media and that Beijing has no authority over its data, invoking familiar arguments to head off a US ban orforced sale. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
TikTok CEO in the hot seat: 5 takeaways from his first appearance before Congress
NetChoice, a technology trade group that includes TikTok as a member, called the Montana bill unconstitutional.

“The government may not block our ability to access constitutionally protected speech – whether it is in a newspaper, on a website or via an app. In implementing this law, Montana ignores the U.S. Constitution, due process and free speech by denying access to a website and apps their citizens want to use,” said Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s general counsel.

The ACLU also pushed back on the bill, releasing a statement saying that “with this ban, Governor Gianforte and the Montana legislature have trampled on the free speech of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to express themselves, gather information, and run their small business in the name of anti-Chinese sentiment.”

On Wednesday, Gianforte signed a separate executive order that prohibits the use of any social media application “tied to foreign adversaries” on government devices, including ByteDance-owned CapCut and Lemon8, and Telegram Messenger, which was created while the founder lived in Russia, but is based in Dubai.

Update: This story has been updated to clarify Telegram’s origins.

First off I believe anyone that uses TicTok is a fool considering China is obviously data mining. That being said the first amendment doesn’t seem to hold the same level of urgency that the second amendment does with our Goper leaders. Wonder why?

1. I agree
2. a fun fact about the first amendment...TV, radio, and newspapers are basically controlled the same way as Montana is going to restrict tik tok.

2. How so?

Not a fan of Tik Tok for a variety of reasons and I think there are massive unrealized consequences socially and otherwise, but this obviously violates 1st Amendment rights.




The last sentence of the last tweet is golden.

Broadcast is controlled by the government through the FCC under Title 47
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47



https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech
The FCC has limited legal authority to act on complaints relating to the content of television or radio programming.


The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation.


https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule

While I don't agree that the government should ban TikTok (or speech in general) all they need to do is take a page from the gun grabbers playbook and claim it serves an important interest in preserving the public safety. This has been the second step in the two step for a long time, and been highly effective.

I think that the legislation if narrowly directed at Tic-Toc, will not survive a court challenge. That said, legislation that bans entities that use data mining software that located in China or have servers based in China or any number of other countries (Russia, North Korea, etc.) would be more plausible.

Ridiculous.

When limiting an enumerated right the minimum level of scrutiny should be strict scrutiny. This would require the limitation to be as narrowly tailored as possible to meet the stated end of the state, which should be a provable outcome as well. Broadly banning an application just because it has servers in China would not meet this level of scrutiny.

The servers are not in China. They are in the US. I am fine with TikTok being gone. My friend (wrongly) got into legal trouble due to being hacked on tiktok. Good riddens for that crappy site to be gone.

Banning one site wont stop China. They have plenty of other apps to steal your data.

I've been a big fan of banning stuff just to keep people "safe". The world isn't safe, be vigilant.

I’ll give you props on your legal POV, and takes you’ve shared. Too bad you are so enamored with team red.

I'm not really enamoured with either team. I want government to stop trying to fix us and treating us like they are out parents. Government is a necessary evil (and sometimes it can be truly evil) and I think we need to limit how much of it we have and put it at specific tasks. Telling me I can or can't watch stupid TikTok challenges is not one of those tasks it is suited for.

Translation: I like your legal knowledge and acumen until it disagrees with my political leanings regardless of legality.

Dude, this place is rife with confirmation bias like that. C'mon man.. you know better. Don't make me get your gang membership reduced to the plebe level.

You forgot the purple.

Anarchist. Jk, good on you. you’re awake. But the way you and Pit go back and forth had me convinced you’re a GOPer. And I’ll be the first to tell you that if I don’t think I’ll like what you have to say, I ignore what you say. My bad, if I was wrong, but some of those post with pit screamed trumpian. And I don’t get defending their POV, not post J6 anyway. The military in me won’t ever let that ish slide. Anyone supporting that or Trump is no better than the idiots who committed the worst attack on the US Capitol in our history if you ask me. I got nothing for them but a desire to see them pay dearly.

Montana really doesn’t have the authority to override FCC regulations of interstate and international communications by radio, wire, satellite and cable. But Montana will no doubt test the legalities at the cost of US American tax payers. What a shame.

Sorry.. I really forgot the "not"

"'ve not been a big fan of banning stuff..."

But thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.

If you aren't paying attention to what I say then how do you know what I say?

Let me see if I can make it clear. I don't care for politicians to start with. Trump got me a Federal judiciary that moved back toward center. I know you think it is all right winger now, but there was too much left wing influence. I want good solid decisions not based solely on ideology. We can't get rid of people's ideology but we can temper it with keeping a good balance.

With the civil suit nonsense, it wasn't Trump that I was defending, it was the legal process. Period. You don't see me yelling Biden should be in jail. He'd not been convicted of a crime. That isn't to say an investigation isn't warranted, but I don't know if it is. I am sick and tired of the political elite getting away with sending us out to war with each other while they couldn't give a rat's patootie about us just so they don't have to work real jobs and get rich doing it. It isn't left or right, it is all of em. Is was better when tar and feathers was more in fashion.

Actually Montanna does. State always superceds federal.

However, Montana is attempting to take the same approach the fcc is doing with broadcast and print.

Article 6 disagrees:


The Federal mandates override state law unless the power is prohibited to the Federal government.

10A

That said when one digs into actual communications law, there may be a case made if the FCC doesn't already have regulations that would prohibit a state from doing or if congress hasn't passed laws prohibiting such.

Let the law suits begin. And US tax payers will pay for it.

We strongly disagree on the judiciary, but I get you now. Again, my bad, I just have zero tolerance for MAGA AND TRUMP. IT’S MY PERSONAL MISSION TO HATE ALL THINGS TRUMP/MAGA UNTIL IT IS NO MORE. That’s not fixation, it’s response. I don’t think he’s electable anymore, but until the base is convinced it’s over for MAGA, the fight must go on. And I’m progressive in most of my values these days, yet, I still consider myself independent. I like to be very common sense when it comes to solving problems. Neither left nor right do that anymore. Seems like the world doesn’t from my POV. But OMG, some of the things the right has pulled since OBAMA was elected are just putrid and vile. I’d go so far as to say the most un-American I could imagine, and I have a very good imagination. So I come across as far far left to them. I get that, but don’t care. And I really don’t like being nasty with people, but I don’t deal well seeing this place overrun with trumpism and my inner nutcase says get ‘em. This is really the only place outside of my home that I discuss politics. Less the occasional post on twitter, fb, or elsewhere.

FCC doesn't control the internet.... hence the rub. Montana has the power on this one.

It seems it is part of what they do.

100% inaccurate. Most people don’t know that though.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech#:~:text=The%20FCC%20does%20not%20regulate,restraints%20and%20obligations%20on%20broadcasters.


The FCC does not regulate any online content.

The FCC controls distribution methods and communications. If they aren't involved the FTC could be. They do have say in content.

How does Montana expect to make this happen?

FTC only deals with trade. They don't control access or content just making sure things are fair and not deceptive.

Montana seems to be well within their rights to make this happen and I would expect other states will follow suit one way or a variation of how Montana did it.

I'm an adult (most of the time) so I'm capable of defending myself or at least able to ask for help when needed.

I don't need the government trying to save me. Children are another story. I worry about kids on Tic Tok and other apps.

The FTC controls COPA. And banning TikTok is banning commerce.

Montana won't win this in court. If nothing else that pesky 1A will get in the way.

Something I saw in an article concerning this topic I found quite disturbing. It appears Montana's governor not only is attempting to block TicTok, his intent is to also put controls on other social media apps. I'm only posting the part of the article that pertains to that but the entire article can be found at the link.

I’m going to laugh my ass off when all the MAGA haters and supremacy groups in Montana can’t access their hate groups online.

So you claim I'm the one who tried to divert the thread away from the topic? "Mah guns! Murica!"

And how has that been highly effective again? And in case you missed it, which you clearly did as per usual, I'm not the one who brought up your supposed legal skills. I just commented on it.

Once again you're trying too hard. If you don't want a thread to go off the rails, stop driving the thread off the rails.

I will suggest that Facebook and Google support the ban of Tic-Toc.

From a business standpoint that makes sense. But then one would have to ask, what will they say when the government comes after them? From a long term perspective I would suggest it would be in their own best interest to back TicTok. But then again, they must consider the political blow back from such a move in today's world. I mean they certainly wouldn't want to end up being the next Disney or Bud Light.

When you decided to make me the ficus if you comments instead if the thread topic you tried to take it off the rails. And you continue to do so. The only one trying hard here is you, trying hard to make a fight.

Try addressing the topic instead of me. Or am I all you care about here?

I actually don't care about you at all but see the humor in your games and love to point them out. I'll translate them for those following along...

"If I take a thread about TicTok and turn it into a gun issue that's fine. I can derail a thread into mah guns any time I like. But if Pit or anyone else takes it in another direction I don't like, I will accuse them of doing what I had already done. It's okay if I do it, but not anyone else."

You just love to create a double standard and then accuse others of being the people who start the fight.

And yet only you seemed to need to complain and take the thread off topic. Not like that was my only post. But try and try you really have nothing meaningful to say.

You had already taken it off topic with "mah guns!" Try and pay attention. And of course deflection is all you have.

Of course it was quite on topic until you woke up today.

It my most satirical voice..... Well of course it was. So it's just like when you are the only one that complains about something I post? Interesting....

So you are just here to fight. Got it.

So when I do exactly what you do, your claim is I'm only here to fight. Interesting.

I posted quite a bit of discussion on this thread, you've posted nothing but fights. So no, you didn't do what I do, you did what you do. You show up and fight, then blame it on someone else.

You do know the exact same thing could be said about several threads where I provided quite a bit of discussion in the threads where you came into them and you did the exact same thing. Do you have an address where I should send your mirror to?

don't have time to reply in depth. running out the door. But... no. FTC ONLY deals with trade/deceptive practices marketing tactics etc.

TikTok doesn't sell anything. They are a social channel.

The FTC is in charge of COPA it seems, which is content driven.

So from a how Montana could accomplish this I see a few options.

1) Layer 7 firewalls at NAPs inside MT a la China and their content filtering. This would involve the FCC since it would be in charge of the network at Layer 1. This likely would be ineffective even if they could get these devices installed.

2) Create laws that specifically target TikTok as a business and make it illegal to do business in MT based on those laws and business practices. This would likely need to be so narrowly crafted it to ony target TikTok it would be ineffective. Simple business practice changes could invalidate it. If they specifically name TikTok there would be a 14A challenge to it, if the FTC doesn't step in. This also implicates interstate commerce, and so Congress could get involved as well.

3) Make TikTok illegal to residents. This would be blatant censorship and would involve 1A and 14A challenges. No way this passes muster and would likely be enjoined before the ink is dry from signing it.

It would be interesting to see how they attempt it, but the chances of something like the surviving is negligible.

I wish Jules was here so we could rail on about the "slippery slope" but where does this end? If a state can come up with reasons to ban tiktok over some perceived fear of "China", then surely they can come up with reasons to ban Fox News or MSNBC or Youtube or porn sites or the NRA or any host of other things they might view as "for the public good"....

Kinda ironic that republicans have an open season on banning many of our freedoms these days. Of course, not on those pesky military assault rifles. No way.

i encourage you to read the law they are passing and you are going to be like... ohhhh

I think you talking about COPPA laws? Yes, it's illegal to data mine or target & market children under the age of 13. I always thought that law should have been 18. JMHO

Montana doesn't have to do anything except enforce it.

The app stores have to block anyone in the state of Montana from downloading the app.

And that’s just it. Anyone with digital savvy will still be able to download and use the app. Montana will need to shut down much of the general public’s internet access to completely cut off access to an app.

I had a read of SB419 (which I believe is the version sent and signed).

I don't see anything particularly clever in it, and I would be surprised if this survives a lawsuit. It does exempt users from penalty, which I suspect is solely designed to reduce the ability of users to have standing. As this deals with interstate and international commerce it will be an interesting one to watch.

TikTok sues Montana over state's ban of app

"We are challenging Montana's unconstitutional TikTok ban," the company said.

TikTok sued Montana in federal court on Monday over a ban of the app enacted by the state last week.

"We are challenging Montana's unconstitutional TikTok ban to protect our business and the hundreds of thousands of TikTok users in Montana," the company said in a statement. "We believe our legal challenge will prevail based on an exceedingly strong set of precedents and facts."

The office of Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that the ban violates the First Amendment, arguing that the measure shuts down a "forum for speech for all speakers on the app," singling out TikTok users for "disfavored treatment."

Among a host of other challenges, TikTok said the ban is preempted by federal law because it is attempting to address an issue rooted in national security that is handled by the U.S. government.

The Montana ban, the first measure of its kind in the U.S., does not prevent current users from accessing the app or penalize them for doing so.

Instead, the ban targets the availability of the app by threatening entities such as TikTok, Google and Apple with a $10,000 fine for each day that the platform remains accessible in app stores for users in Montana.

The ban takes effect in January 2024.

TikTok serves hundreds of thousands of users in Montana and more than 5,000 businesses, TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter previously told ABC News.

State officials will be able to enforce the law by observing whether app stores display TikTok for users in Montana, and the relevant companies should be largely capable of identifying where users reside and denying access accordingly, experts previously said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tiktok-su...QSZuJmUQVje28j0PVcQVsGt7W6lBhl_GXU-xaOHs

I believe this was the expected result of Montana's ban.

Yes as expected. Maybe they should just send this straight to the Supreme Court to save time and money. That’s where this issue is going to end up eventually anyways.

I can not see any way SCOTUS would accept this at this point. It will need to work the process, that is the way it works, even when it makes no sense or when it is obvious.