Ocho and/or Tree ----- Quick legal Question

[El OchoCinco]

New legal question, and I'm sure I could probably google it, but can Tik-Tok can take this ban to court? Apparently they can, but how does that work? Passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President... which court does that go to? AND... is that a jury trial? Does it just go straight to SCOTUS if they claim it's a Constitutional violation of free speech?

Naive questions I know, but inquiring minds... how will that work(?)... because you can bet Tik-Tok is pissed and they won't take this lying down. We're talking billions in lost ad revenue.

National Security is a catch all for any justification the government wants to use to violate a company or person's rights. National security justification was used to round up Japanese in the 1940s for example.

For me the Congressional hearings were so embarrassing with the CEO from TikTok it was laughable. They tried to get him to say TT was a tool of the Chinese government numerous times and proved nothing. Is your personal data safe on FB, X and insta but not on TT? Isn't TT banned in China?

On the other side one can argue speech isn't being prohibited..only the platform. Useless content creators can go to several other platforms to do the same thing.

The question also is who sues? A foreign entity suing US government over a ban? That's a long long road unless US business sue because they used TT for specific advertising or promotions and the ban is not supported by law.

I believe the ban is serious over reach. The idea that our info is safe but TT is how China is spying on us is a stretch. China been hacking servers for years and now we are worried. TT is a dog whistle for people.runnibg for office or those pissed off that videos against them go viral.

I have to read when this TT ban goes into effect because as of tosmday we still using TT.

 

[vanzandt]

Tree (or Ocho)...
Here's a question. Since SCOTUS made its ruling regarding "official duties", they are saying Trump's lawyers can ask for a new trial in NYC because some of the evidence presented falls under that category.

So here's my question, if a law can be applied looking back... what about all the people that are in jail for say marijuana charges, in states that have now legalized weed? Wouldn't they be able to request new trials?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Tree (or Ocho)...
Here's a question. Since SCOTUS made its ruling regarding "official duties", they are saying Trump's lawyers can ask for a new trial in NYC because some of the evidence presented falls under that category.

So here's my question, if a law can be applied looking back... what about all the people that are in jail for say marijuana charges, in states that have now legalized weed? Wouldn't they be able to request new trials?

Ahhh, the scenarios are different at their core. In Trump's case, the Court is not retroactively applying a new law. They are just getting around to deciding that the constitution (separation of powers, executive privilege, etc.) always applied to presidents including when and before Trump was charged. (but that there are certain factual scenarios where he could be charged and the lower court must parse that out based on a review of the facts.)

In regard to the example of weed being legalized or the like, that is usually dealt with by the governor or president doing a mass pardon or commutation or by the statute letting anyone previously convicted to petition the court to have their record expunged. Some of the that is at the discretion of the executive or the legislature and not necessarily the right of the defendant. (although it would be a right if defendant had been denied a procedural right at trial, but that would be a different example than the one you mentioned).

Can get to be complicated real fast depending on the example. Even when laws and rights are overturned at the Supreme Court, the court has a wide range of discretion in regard to how retroactive to make the application of its decisions. Sorting all that out is pretty much the full time work of the court. Trumps case is an active case though. He is still at trial.

 

[vanzandt]

Ahhh, the scenarios are different at their core. In Trump's case, the Court is not retroactively applying a new law. They are just getting around to deciding that the constitution (separation of powers, executive privilege, etc.) always applied to presidents including when and before Trump was charged. (but that there are certain factual scenarios where he could be charged and the lower court must parse that out based on a review of the facts.)

In regard to the example of weed being legalized or the like, that is usually dealt with by the governor or president doing a mass pardon or commutation or by the statute letting anyone previously convicted to petition the court to have their record expunged. Some of the that is at the discretion of the executive or the legislature and not necessarily the right of the defendant. (although it would be a right if defendant had been denied a procedural right at trial, but that would be a different example than the one you mentioned).

Can get to be complicated real fast depending on the example. Even when laws and rights are overturned at the Supreme Court, the court has a wide range of discretion in regard to how retroactive to make the application of its decisions. Sorting all that out is pretty much the full time work of the court. Trumps case is an active case though. He is still at trial.

Good stuff. T/U
After I asked, I thought about it and thought,well they didn't really change a law... they established one. Not sure if that's right, but interesting either way. thnx

 

[vanzandt]

Can Crowdstrike be held liable if say someone dies because of this outage? 911 systems are down in some places. You can bet there will be incidents of this.

 

[gwb-trading]

Can Crowdstrike be held liable if say someone dies because of this outage? 911 systems are down in some places. You can bet there will be incidents of this.

What did the license agreement state when the software was installed? I am pretty sure the license agreement which was accepted (but probably not read) stated Crowdstrike cannot be held liable for outages or their impact.

 

[vanzandt]

What did the license agreement state when the software was installed? I am pretty sure the license agreement which was accepted (but probably not read) stated Crowdstrike cannot be held liable for outages or their impact.

Yeah I'm sure it does, but I think lawyers can work around that, especially if it's their fault and not an act of war or a cyber attack.

There'll be a lot of lawsuits I bet. This will plague CRWD for quite some time. Lawyers gonna lawyer.

 

[gwb-trading]

Yeah I'm sure it does, but I think lawyers can work around that, especially if it's their fault and not an act of war or a cyber attack.

There'll be a lot of lawsuits I bet. This will plague CRWD for quite some time. Lawyers gonna lawyer.

With MAGA everything is a conspiracy...

Right-Wing Conspiracy Theorists Say Global IT Outage Was an Attack on Trump
Let's see what the dumbest people on the internet have to say.
https://gizmodo.com/right-wing-cons...l-it-outage-was-an-attack-on-trump-2000476804