And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3
The bill doesn’t target the CCP, it targets a US subsidiary of a Singapore-based multinational.
Comment on US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps, TikTok argues
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 months agoA US Citizen might be protected by Article 1 Section 9, but courts have adopted a three-part test to determine if a law functions as a bill of attainder:
- The law inflicts punishment.
- The law targets specific named or identifiable individuals or groups.
- Those individuals or groups would otherwise have judicial protections.
And unfortunately for the CCP they fail #3 unless the Chinese owners divest and all Chinese centralization for the company gets shut down.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 months ago
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose must no longer act as a proxy between Finite Banjo and Jose’s friend Juan, as Finite Banjo is not constitutionally protected but Jose is, or Jose must cut all contact with Juan because Finite Banjo is harming Juan.
The fact that you think you can remove all context in an attempt to win an argument is just evidence of your inability to comprehend complexity.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It would be akin to passing a law that states Finite Banjo’s friend Jose
Except, again, the business being penalized is the American subsidiary.
The fact that you think you can remove all context
The context is that the commercial assets and employees being threatened by the US government are all within US territory.
Buttons@programming.dev 2 months ago
You mean the CCP is not an “individual or group”?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
#3. Number 3. The third part. THREE. Learn to read.
The parent company don’t have judicial protections. They’re based in China and are state owned and operated. The US-Based subsidiary isn’t being punished, they’re explicitly allowed to operate if the parent company divests, but are choosing to shut down instead.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 months ago
But the subsidiary does.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And the subsidiary has explicit permission to continue operating if the parent company divests.