States can’t just ban apps, says federal judge.

Montana planned to ban TikTok from January. But a U.S. district court has other ideas. The judge ruled the state can’t stop app stores offering an app (also that Montana’s justification is, in part, a little bit … well … racist).

How would you even enforce a statewide ban? In today’s SB Blogwatch, we ponder the great firewall of Montana.

Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Steamed Hams but sorted by phoneme.

For You Plague, Still

What’s the craic? Bobby Allyn reports—“Federal judge blocks Montana’s TikTok ban”:

“Paternalistic argument”
[In] a blow to an unprecedented attempt to completely restrict a single app within a state’s borders, … Montana’s TikTok ban … has now been temporarily halted. … U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said Montana’s TikTok ban “oversteps state power” and “likely violates the First Amendment.”
…
Molloy said … he found the national security case presented against TikTok unconvincing, writing that if anything the Montana law had a “pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment.” … He said state officials justified the Montana ban under a “paternalistic argument.” … Lawyers for TikTok argued that the national security threat raised by officials in Montana was never supported by solid evidence.

When would this have happened? Richard Lai tells us it “was just one month away from the start date”:

What about states’ rights? Jules_ underscores the issue: [You’re fired—Ed.]

I hate TikTok (and social media in general) as much as the next person, but the last thing I want is states getting to decide what specific and otherwise legal … apps I can and can’t download.

Spare a thought for the poor lawmakers. pavlov rings the bell:

I have no illusions about TikTok. But constitutionally they can’t be targeted just because “everyone knows who they are.” … You can’t make a law that limits the speech of just one company—any more than you can make a law that targets a single individual by name.
…
The foreign ownership angle is the one they should be looking at. … TikTok Inc. is a US corporation … on paper, [but it] is owned by TikTok Ltd. in the Caymans, which is owned by ByteDance also registered in the Caymans but controlled by Chinese interests — maybe via some Singapore routing too, I forget.

This is separate from the various federal and state bans for employees. uncqual reminds us thuswise:

There’s no problem with the government banning TikTok on government owned devices or on private devices in work areas of government facilities. But … I don’t see any way that the government can legally ban TikTok on consumers’ private devices.

Sounds reasonable. And Good Bot, Bad Bot agrees:

TikTok is based in China, a totalitarian nation-state and foe of the US. … It collects user data and metadata that is sent to servers in China. … Companies must provide access to their servers and any data on them to the government, so it is not a good idea for US government employees to use TikTok—especially if they have a sensitive position. … Add the possibility of dormant malware waiting to be activated and it’s a security nightmare.
…
TikTok is junk … but it shouldn’t be banned for … use on private phones. This law is ridiculous and Montana would ban the Internet if they could.

However, imiric supports the public ban idea:

This argument holds no water when corporations are running platforms that are used to spread disinformation and propaganda that is tearing the fabric of society apart and becoming a matter of national security. … I’m in constant disbelief that these platforms weren’t heavily regulated years ago.
…
I’m also in disbelief that this is such a controversial matter, and that politicians and the general public … can’t put two and two together and realize that the extreme sociopolitical polarization in the West is a direct consequence of information warfare.

And bradley13 cites other reasons:

The justification for the ban is “to protect residents from alleged intelligence gathering by China”—i.e., a government standing up for privacy rights. User data is being transferred to Chinese servers. This is no different, really, than the EU demands that data on EU citizens not be stored on US servers.
…
If the data is on Chinese servers, you have no control over who has access to it. Be assured that the Chinese government does.

Meanwhile, Reduce your debt wonders what all the fuss is about:

Dancing cat videos are a national security threat these days.

And Finally:

A-d-e-ea-ha-m-s-t

Previously in And Finally

You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites … so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi, @richij or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Do not stare into laser with remaining eye. E&OE. 30.

Image sauce: Jean-Pierre Demailly (public domain)