So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of the ban was biased toward any particular content, which it isn't.
They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment, or anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated later.
>whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment
The petitioners made those challenges as well. 3 lower courts denied them, and SCOTUS chose not to overturns the law based on those challenges, thus upholding the constitutionality of the law.
Based on your the argument, because SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of the ban with respect to the 2nd amendment, they didn't actually declare that it was legitimate.
So yes technically you are correct, but SCOTUS certainly choose not to declare the law illegitimate, which is the most legitimating thing they are ever going to do.
>So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
It's just a bad analogy. Come up with a better one.
> So, by your way of thinking, if there was a chance that pooping on the floor myself might discourage my dog's bad behavior, I should go right ahead?
No, I think the way of thinking is that it's irrelevant whether or not China (the dog) does it. If you want to deny the Chinese government the ability to use a Chinese-owned social media platform in a certain way, then you ban it. This isn't a tit-for-tat situation at all; the US is doing something it believes is beneficial for itself; it's not simply pooping on the floor which would serve no benefit.
The overall point is that your analogy doesn't fit the current circumstances, so stop using it to argue against the TikTok ban.
The role of the US government isn't do things it believes are beneficial for itself. It's to administer the law consistently with the constitution. When it behaves in arbitrary way and implicates the rights of its own people in order to pursue geopolitical ambitions on the global stage, it is metaphorically pooping on the floor.
The constitution explicitly gives the government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Nothing about this is arbitrary, it is merely the government catching up with new technology and bringing regulation of that technology closer in line with regulation of existing technology. Foreign governments or companies controlled by foreign governments have been prohibited from holding radio licenses since 1934.
It's not quite correct to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the ban is legitimate. It narrowly ruled that the immediate first amendment challenge wasn't sufficient to invalidate the law under intermediate scrutiny. The only thing they were evaluating was whether the impact of the ban was biased toward any particular content, which it isn't.
They didn't rule on the overall constitutionality of the act, whether its first section amounts to a bill of attainder, whether the forced divestiture would amount to a fifth amendment taking, whether it violated the broader freedom of the press under the first amendment, or anything else. Those questions might well be evaluated later.