Sure, there's plenty of precedent for "isolationist, supremacist, deeply unconstitutional and categorically stupid" laws. How do you think our media got so fucked up in the first place?
That doesn't make it right.
That doesn't make it right.
> deeply unconstitutional
It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
> categorically stupid
By what measure and for what reason? We did not ban TikTok, we did not remove byte dances ability to profit from it. We just required that the company that is controlled by a foreign nation sell its controlling interest in a massive media company.... Unlike china where FB/Google... etc are banned outright.
> It is not this, where does the constitution enshrine anything for a foreign power operating on American soil?
By default, TikTok users have a First Amendment right to use a communication platform controlled by a foreign power. National security can override such a right, but the federal government hasn't declassified it's evidence of TikTok's supposed national security threat.
This law changes nothing for US TikTok users.
The users who have a million followers or make money using TikTok are expecting that the sale doesn't happen. In the best light, the TikTok forced sale will be constitutional if it succeeds (i.e. results in a forced sale) and will be unconstitutional if it fails (i.e. results in a ban). But even assuming that a sale will happen (and putting aside the burden of demonstrating that "this law changes nothing"), two things would change. In the short term (i.e. during the transition), I would expect interruptions in the content moderation at best (temporary increase in posts in violation of TikTok's rules). In the long term, I expect the change in managing personnel to change the content moderation, including the recommendation algorithm. Users of post-sale TikTok will receive different information than they did from pre-sale TikTok.
Lamont v. Postmaster General confirmed a First Amendment right for a US citizen to receive foreign propaganda in the mail without needing to tell the government "I consent to receiving foreign propaganda". If such a simple burden as having to write a sentence to the federal government to receive foreign propaganda violates the First Amendment, then surely the temporary degradation of TikTok's service (of uncertain length from the average TikTok user's perspective) in the course of a forced sale would violate the First Amendment as well.
Less rigorously, I suspect that the TikTok forced sale is unconstitutional (relating to "deprived of life, liberty, or property" in the Fifth Amendment), since the US employees at TikTok's US office will have uncertain job security.
Note: When I say "unconstitutional" I mean in the context of "so long as the federal government refuses to declassify its evidence that TikTok is a national security threat".