• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I mean, yeah? Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are inalienable rights, sure, but they’re generally intended to extend to citizens. Not foreign governments.

    There’s a big difference between a Chinese citizen here on a green card going around saying they love China and a company running an active misinformation campaign on orders from their government.

    It’s no different than how the government tried to crack down on Russian election interference. Turns out, hostile nations running psyops campaigns is bad.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I agree that it’s bad, and it should be forbidden… but with the whole US decisions that “corporations are people” and “money is speech”, I think it’s legally questionable.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I might grant questionable, but not super.

        I think a large part of why it was a 9-0 decision was that it’s not speech to run a social media site. It’s commerce, plain as day. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce full stop. The fact that China is using that platform to spread misinformation, and then claiming that stopping them from doing so is a 1A violation is just a red herring.

        “Money is speech” just means rich people can donate all the money they want to a politician. Not that you can run an otherwise unlawful business because “money is speech and free speech is a thing!”