The prohibition is not on speech. It’s on installing a specific piece of software on government-issued devices, when the government has determined that software is a security & privacy threat.
The professors could legally use a third-party client app (if one exists) to connect to the service.
One example cited by the plaintiffs is Jacqueline Vickery, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Arts at the University of North Texas, who studies and teaches how young people use social media for expression and political organizing. “The ban has forced her to suspend research projects and change her research agenda, alter her teaching methodology, and eliminate course materials,” the complaint reads. “It has also undermined her ability to respond to student questions and to review the work of other researchers, including as part of the peer-review process.”
This is literally preventing some profs from doing their jobs properly. There has to be a way to sandbox it to negate the threat while still allowing academic research and teaching.
The ban says they can’t install the TikTok app on government-provided devices. I don’t see why they can’t have the TikTok app on their personal devices. Or if they have to visit it on a government device, why can’t they use the web interface.
The ban is on devices and networks, so even if they bring their personal devices to campus or want to use the web that’s a no-go.
Eh, no reason they can’t use their own data, though. To me, it’s not much different than the restrictions from most companies have, where you’re not supposed to use company resources for personal business.
They can’t have the university expense a $300 Android device + a vpn to access TikTok? This solves, not having to use a government issued device that access government’s resources and networks, and being protected by using a vpn to create an onion route and preventing potential phone home.
If they cannot work around this, then I legitimately question the quality of “research” they would be conducting here.
If you converted the source code of the tiktok app into a book, and said having that book as a PDF on those devices was prohibited, it would be a violation of freedom of speech, no?
So why should it being a PDF or not matter? Bernstein v. US held that software code is protected under the 1st amendment. https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice
The Bernstein case referred to publishing software source code, which is human-readable and does not come with permissions requirements. A compiled app, coupled with specific permissions requirements for tracking, doesn’t fit the fact pattern of the Bernstein case.
Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding the ban but the book isn’t transmitting data is it?
I thought the TikTok ban was based on who has access to the data, not that the data exists.
I’m pretty certain transcribing confidential information into a book and calling it free speech wouldn’t circumvent the laws restricting access to that info.
First you need to have the source code
It’s some silly videos, who determined it a threat?
The American government.
The claim seems to be that it’s not the videos; it’s the installing a piece of software that grants a foreign dictatorship access to monitor Texas government employees.
It appears that the TikTok service currently requires, as a term of service, that the user consent to be monitored and tracked by a corporation ultimately controlled by the China government. That is something that the state of Texas and the US government appear to believe they have good reason to prevent on devices used for work by government employees.
In any event, it’s very much not clear that “you may not install this specific piece of software on a government device” is a speech restriction.
I’ve been telling everything that Google and META are threats but nobody listens to me.
Oh, you were referring to TikTok.
The American government doesn’t care about domestic tech companies spying on consumers because they get that data, too. They know how much can be fished from it so they don’t want to let China in on the game.
who determined that it’s merely ‘some silly videos’?
There are 3rd party tik tok apps?
There are 3rd party tik tok apps?
I’m not familiar with what apps might be available, nor can I be arsed to look. I’d phrase it more like “other ways of accessing TikTok”, in which case the obvious answer is yes, starting with Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc, etc, etc.
I’m not a US citizen so I’m not sure how this works, so if I say some stupid shit you can call me out on it, but, is it not a ban only in state devices/networks?
Why is that impeding researches/studies? What is stopping them from just using a personal device on a personal network, or at least a “work” (but still personal) device/network?
I just don’t understand that part.
For not being a US citizen you have a better grasp on our free speech laws than the professors suing Texas. First I want to state fuck Greg Abbott. Now with that being said, it’s not a violation of free speech for the government to block a website on government devices/networks. There are already a huge number of websites that are blocked. I can understand the arguments against doing it but it’s not a violation of free speech just because they don’t block Facebook too.
First I want to state fuck Greg Abott.
Woah whats state fucking? Sounds intense.
I’m a USian and state government does in fact have to pay more respect to the first amendment than private businesses.
They have to show some kind of compelling interest that justifies doing something like this. And keep in mind that “state devices” are not just office PCs, but also stuff like Chromebooks distributed to schoolchildren.
I would trust university professors on something like this.
“Government decides how Government resources are governed.”
…
Yeah, seems pretty reasonable.
This is one of those situations where I hope everyone loses
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.
It has long been recognized that freedom of speech is not unlimited, and I really hope you’re not trying to argue that TikTok is press.
Oh. People are trying. I recently, will add briefly, watched a documentary on the Titanic where they had a guy from TT stating facts because his authority is that he’s “The Titanic guy”. Turned it off seconds after I stopped laughing.
The key line here is “abridging the freedom of speech”
I don’t like TikTok. I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories. However, I think it’s an equally dangerous step to let the government decide to limit or remove access to a foreign social media site. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.
while it might seem like a good move to limit access to TikTok specifically, that sets the precedent for removing access to other ways of communicating.
That precedent is well established.
They’re not limiting access. They’re saying you can’t install the application on a government-supplied device. Want TikTok on your personal phone - great, go ahead! Want to watch TikTok in a browser on your government device - hey, that’s fine! Install a piece of software that’s really aggressive in the data it collects on a government device - nope!
I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories
This is unrelated but I laughed.
This is a perfect description of Great Old Party.
I think it’s an actual danger to our society in how it promotes the dumbest shit and encourages dangerous antics and conspiracy theories.
Now for a serious post, I’ll gladly sacrifice TikTok and a goat if that’s it takes to kill Google, META and the others.
Unless it’s from China or any communist allies.
Or any other foreign entity. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written to protect foreign governments or business interests.
or business interests.
According to the Supreme Court, businesses have human rights, are you defending the violation of human rights?
How the turn tables.
foreign governments or business interests.
Obviously meaning foreign governments or foreign business interests. Not sure how you misunderstood that.
I see, the USA should work on banning Toyota, Samsung, Siemens, Nestle and etc.
Actually, just banning Nestlé for their slavery practices in Africa would be good enough.
100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.
But do you at least understand how the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to this conversation at all now?
100% agree about Neslte. And I’d be happy to expand the requirements to do business with America to include adhering to US labor regulations.
Make it United Nations labor regulations and we’re set for a good time, comrade.
Sure, that sounds good and all but do you understand the UN doesn’t have any legal power over its member nations? I’m interested in realistic, enforceable legal outcomes, not utopian dreams.
Your idealism is fun, but you really need to read more and travel some to start peeling off that thick layer of naivety.
If blocking a website on government devices/networks is a violation of free speech why are you just now sounding the alarm? Why didn’t you sound the alarm when I wasn’t allowed to browse reddit on my government laptop? The government blocking access on personal devices/networks is a violation, blocking access on government networks/devices is business as usual.
I’ve been sounding alarms for 10 years now.
Tiktok is not the sole method for speech, and it is not a slippery slope to ban all similar methods of speech.
The reason for not allowing it is that tiktok is malware. Should malware with a political message be required to be installed on government computers?
If they were forbidden from installing the app on their personal devices, I’d agree with you. However, the ban is on installing it on government devices, so it’s their right to make that rule.
Also, if they really have to watch TikTok on government provided devices, they can watch through Firefox or Chrome or Safari. I’m not seeing any issue at all here.
Banning an app has nothing to do with free speech protection. That case will most likely be thrown out unless theirs some sneaky clause I’m missing that they are challenging here.
Why does Texas hate free speech and freedom so much?
