585
3Call it tiktok ban, PAFACA, 啪发卡；it’s been upheld and we try to make sense of it. Too long don’t listen version: 言论自由天下第一，但国家安全是天。
(1:27) some (not much) context
(6:34) How can 啪发卡 be so well drafted in such a bad way? 群众互斗，名列前茅，卡点巧思，与忒修斯之船
(17:11) What was the F word that screwed tt 3 times in the decision? 言论价值倒反天罡，tt的诉讼不可能两全策略，与帝国落日的边疆
(44:12) What implications ensue? 压力来到了SCOTUS，川普，和马斯克这边（吗？）
(1:01:26) 彩蛋；or, any freedom thereof notwithstanding, how not everyone can give a nice speech.
本期（事实上，任何一期）播客不构成法律建议或雇主意见而只是sound and fury told by two podcasters signifying nuthin'. This is not even a 法律播客，but a parody of a 法律播客，ffs.
Some references:
TikTok v. Garland (D.C. Cir. 2024)
“Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”, S.686 (118th Congress 2023-24)
“Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” or 啪发卡，H.R.7521 (118th Congress 2023-24), as a part of H.R.815
Ashcroft v. ACLU (SCOTUS 2004) (filters are a qualified alternative to criminal penalty/fines of for distributing minor-harmful content) (3:43)
Murthy v. MO (2024) (users lack Article III standing to seek injunction of gov’t from pressuring social media platforms to censor speech) (8:58)
Moody v. NetChoice (SCOTUS 2024) (”Corporations, which are composed of human beings with First Amendment rights, possess First Amendment rights themselves. But foreign persons and corporations located abroad do not. So a social-media platform’s foreign ownership and control over its content-moderation decisions might affect whether laws overriding those decisions trigger First Amendment scrutiny.") (14:57)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (SCOTUS 2015) (18:16)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (SCOTUS 2010), and Breyer’s dissent (18:32) [was actually only cited 11 instead of 100 times here, majority & concurrence combined]
Gov’s redacted brief (or the lack thereof) (21:38)
Lamont v. Postmaster General (SCOTUS 1965) (29:58)
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. Chicago (Jackson’s dissent, 1949) (36:59)
Australia banning stuff (53:50); Brazil banning and unbanning stuff (56:26)
Brown v. Entertainment merchants Ass'n (SCOTUS 2011) (54:50)
NY v. Ferber (SCOTUS 1982) (55:13)
Murdoch seeking citizenship (59:37); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (SCOTUS 1978) (1:00:07)
附加思考题：
- What about overbreadth doctrine? What about vagueness doctrine? And why did Tiktok not argue them?
- How was the FCC-Murdoch regulation constitutional?
bgm credit to suno ai
