Skip to main content

What is the True Crime Related to TikTok?

 What is the True Crime Related to TikTok?


What should concern us about TikTok? Chinese intelligence gathering? The corruption of our youth? Or, stay with me here, the one actual crime: The Congressional usurpation of your right of free expression?

Why Congress Banning TikTok is a Violation of the First Amendment

Amendment 1

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress should not be making laws limiting (abridging) free speech by limiting our use of platforms! Congress can not tell you which soapboxes you can stand on to deliver your message or dissent!

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This means that the government cannot restrict what people say, write, or publish. A ban on TikTok would violate this fundamental right because it would prevent people from using a platform to express themselves.

TikTok is a social media platform that allows users to create and share short videos. It has become increasingly popular in recent years, especially among young people. The app has been used to share videos about a wide range of topics, including politics, social justice, and entertainment.

There are several reasons why a ban on TikTok would be a violation of the First Amendment. 

  1. The app is a popular way for people to express themselves. TikTok users often use the app to share videos about their lives, their thoughts, and their experiences. A ban on TikTok would prevent people from sharing these experiences with others on that platform.
  2. TikTok is a valuable tool for political speech. The app has been used by activists and politicians to share their messages with a wide audience. A ban on TikTok would make it more difficult for people to share their political views.
  3. TikTok is a platform for creative expression. The app has been used by artists, musicians, and other creative professionals to share their work with others. A ban on TikTok would stifle the creativity of these individuals.

A ban on TikTok would be a violation of the First Amendment because it would prevent people from using a platform to express themselves. The app is a popular way for people to share their lives, their thoughts, and their experiences. It is also a valuable tool for political speech and creative expression. Abridging the right of the people to use such a platform violates our Constitutional right of free speech, free expression, and petition. Our lawmakers are breaking our laws!

Popular posts from this blog

It's All Biden's Fault!

  There was a period of reverse immigration! That is, more people headed south than north, between 2008 and 2016. The Republicans began running on border security in spite of this fact. What do you think happened? The “Quick, let's get in before the opportunity closes!” idea kicked in! We saw a resurgence of immigration not seen in decades! It goes like this: Before Trump: reverse immigration.  Trump lies and threats: massive migration.  Trump regulations: Four years of border backup.  I t's Biden's fault  Today: Biden resets after ending Trump regulation: System working legally and properly with backup gone and new people processed by sending those with no credible claim home and the 1 to 2 percent of credible claims through!  Republicans: But, but, but, where's Hunter? Inflation We all agree that too much money chasing too few goods caused inflation, so what is the solution? Raising interest is not it! Producing more goods is! Why do we have a shortage of goods?  Sim
Read more

Problems for Federalism if States Can't Determine Eligibility

If the court rules that individual states can not determine eligibility the door would be open to all third parties for ballot access challenges. The court would have to set up or help to establish federal rules to determine eligibility requirements or face a flood of challenges for all 50 states. That seems to be a nail in the coffin of Federalism. A Trump victory in SCOTUS would set up a 50 state rush of indie candidates who would take eligibility questions to the high court. To avoid that they would have to legislate from the bench or convince Congress to legislate an end to Federalism!
Read more

Preliminary findings after reading the Durham report

  After reading the report: 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 2. Made no suggestion for criminal charges beyond the ones made in an earlier iteration and noted below. 3. Durham found no reason for opening a full investigation into Trump/Russian collaboration at that time. 4. Suggested that the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation. The implication being that a preliminary investigation would have led to a full investigation. 5. Durham said that it was possible that the FBI needed to put some reforms in place. In addition, the investigation as a whole did see an earlier iteration that made 3 criminal charges: One plead guilty, the 2 others were tried and acquitted. I am awaiting the Durham appearance before congress to do a full report. I have an inescapable sense that there is something else going on here. Similarities between this report and the Müller report like something is being left out of the story by both. Somewhere in my reading, I ran across
Read more