It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation.

Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?

I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to.

Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not.

If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.

So essentially you are advocating for the Great Firewall of China. Would you ban VPNs as well?

If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests.

TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends.

This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.

All free countries control and censor broadcast media, but most don't do it for unicast communication.

The person you replied to is clearly being sarcastic.

Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to

IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.

You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).

It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.

It is very much construed “within the US”, excluding the border enforcement zone

The are FCC rules concerning foreign ownership of broadcast channels, which could be considered an exception to this.

What's written and what's enforced often don't align.

> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]

No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.

If you read the links I cited, you would have known that SCOTUS ruled that the full authority of the Constitution only applies as far as incorporated US territories and only to US nationals and citizens (colloquially "Americans").

Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.

You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.

Obligatory IANAL.

The first section you cited [1] interprets "People of the United States" to mean "nationals and citizens". I don't stop being a citizen when I leave US borders. I previously read the first section but neglected to read the second section, and I have decided to mentally autocorrect "People of the United States" to "United States citizens and nationals who are within US borders".

Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.

The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:

> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.

Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.

Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_...

Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it.

Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)

The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.

> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”).

> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.

Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.

If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?

> why should their ideas be let in through a social network?

Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country?

Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population.

Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax.

What does that government do?

They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country.

Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.

This doesn't pass the smell test.

Funny how the decline of American hegemony over social media coincides with Americans arguing social media should be nation-specific.