I actually don’t think they can name the company directly. If I remember right that’s unconstitutional.
Comment on Senate passes TikTok ban bill, sending it to Biden, who has already committed to signing it
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months agoI feel like you might’ve completely misunderstood what I meant, they defined words like Photography and what a Data Broker is hyper-specifically, like a dictionary might. If they wanted to they could have named the company directly. They’re literally the highest power in the US Federal government, they have full authority. They wanted to remove a gap in our system of laws to prevent anything similar from ever occurring in the future.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I cannot imagine why that would be unconstitutional, please explain it to me.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
But American, but that doesn’t sound right… whose rights are being violated in that case? A multinational corporation?
I can see why you shouldn’t name an actual person, though.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Our Corporations have the same rights we do with one exception. If my rights and my employers rights come into conflict, say on religious freedom, I’m forced to accept the corporations right to force me into religious practice. So they have first class and we have second class.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 6 months ago
I didn’t completely misunderstand, I just used the term hyperspecific to refer to the wording of the bill. I would be surprised to see this used for other companies - the recent happenings with Kaspersky are not related to this bill.
What are you referring to here? What occurred?