Skip to main content

How does freedom of the press relate to a TikTok ban?

On this blog, I have previously discussed the U.S. government's attempts to implement a TikTok ban due to concerns over China allegedly using the app to spy on Americans. The potential ban is deeply controversial across partisan lines. Despite the many valid criticisms of the app, people across the world use the platform to share news and firsthand accounts of major events. 

Caitlin Vogus, a senior advisor at Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote that banning TikTok is unconstitutional and, "could set a precedent that empowers the government to censor or outlaw news outlets, too." She goes on to list the five main reasons why a ban would be against the Constitution. They are as follows: 

  1. Even if the government labels something as foreign propaganda, the First Amendment prevents the government from banning speech. 
  2. Forcing divestment, rather than just banning TikTok, still violates the First Amendment. 
  3. Americans have the right to free speech, and that includes the right to speak using TikTok as a platform. 
  4. The government cannot nullify the First Amendment simply by claiming it's an issue of "national security."
  5. There are other, less oppressive ways to deal with TikTok's various issues. 
“Freedom of the press” can be defined as allowing journalists to report information openly and honestly to the public. The citizens’ right to know is valuable, and a free press knows what is important to the people and relays it to them without barriers. In a truly free press system, journalists and citizens would have free access to worldwide internet platforms to share their messages across the world.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's battle against "Washington elites" is neverending

Corina  Lacatus’ study Populism and the 2016 American Election: Evidence from Official Press Releases and Twitter defines populism as “a type of political rhetoric predicated on the moral vilification of elites, who are perceived as self-serving and undemocratic.” Lacatus identifies Trump as the populist candidate of 2016, with him labeling Democrats as the elites, saying they aren’t helping the white middle class of America. From what I can gather, Trump would actually be considered one of the true “elites,” seeing as he’s a “self-serving and undemocratic” billionaire. Lacatis said no matter the ideological leaning of the candidate, populists promise to upset the status quo with one that centralizes the people, not the elites. Trump’s wide appeal to the white middle class definitely took a populist approach in 2016 and may have secured him the election.  In my opinion, the two most interesting findings in Lacatus’ study are the differences in the three candidates’ uses of o...
Post a Comment
Read more

How exposure to mass media influences audiences in politically-significant ways

Mass media plays a key role in shaping political attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors, acting as the main way individuals receive information about politics. While media exposure can have positive effects, like increasing political engagement and knowledge, it can also lead to negative outcomes, like reinforcing misinformation and polarization. This impact can be seen most commonly from traditional news outlets, but the same effects can be seen on social platforms like TikTok as well. One of the primary benefits of mass media is its potential to enhance political knowledge and empathy. According to Dunaway and Graber, political scientist Daniel Lerner discussed a personality trait called “empathic capacity.” This theory posited that when media present new concepts, audiences empathize with what is happening in the story and try to imitate it. An example they gave was when audience members view a news piece about slum dwellers and the accommodations they live in, viewers will apply that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How are candidates capitalizing on the prevailing narratives of this year's election?

In the 2024 General Election, a prevailing narrative that has taken hold is the fight for women’s reproductive rights and immigration. Kamala Harris’ campaign has highlighted her intentions to reinstate Roe v. Wade and statewide access to abortions and reproductive healthcare, while Donald Trump’s campaign is sticking with the recently-adopted “leave it up to the states” motto. While Harris’ platform focuses on women’s issues, Trump’s campaign is still focusing on illegal immigration and the “border crisis.” Many of Trump’s ads attack migrants and Harris’ policies as vice president, calling her the “border czar” and using foreboding music to make viewers associate immigration with feelings of unease and distrust. That can be seen in this advertisement , as well as many of the other ads from his team. Meanwhile, the Harris/Walz campaign has taken the platform that women have the right to choose and Roe v. Wade protections must be reinstated. Her ads take a gentle, empathetic approach to...
2 comments
Read more