TikTok's US Employees Plan To Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Order (cnet.com) 97
TikTok's US employees are planning to file a lawsuit challenging a Trump administration executive order they say would make it illegal for their employer to pay them. From a report: Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring any US transactions with ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, and its subsidiaries. The language of the order is broad, so it's unclear if it would bar TikTok from paying its employees. The Trump administration didn't respond to questions about how the order would impact TikTok's employees. The order, which would take effect Sept. 20, would effectively ban the short-form video app from operating in the US if ByteDance doesn't sell TikTok. Microsoft has acknowledged it's discussing a deal to buy TikTok's service in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Negotiations could be completed by Sept. 15, which is before the executive order's deadline.
Now I get the name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's the sound of the Doomsday Clock [thebulletin.org]. Only 100 seconds to go ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I removed all the smoke alarms in my house. I don't want to wake up in a panic, it might interfere with my ability to reason my way out of a burning house.
Election distraction... (Score:3)
Back here in the real world the bodies are still piling up from the important issues affecting the country right now.
Re:Election distraction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point, a good fraction of the awful shit Trump does is only done as a dead cat strategy, it's easy to miss because he's constantly doing awful shit.
Also, remember when Hugo Chavez nationalized some of the foreign companies operating in his country, and this was considered authoritarian and socialist? Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Election distraction... (Score:5, Informative)
You seem possibly to be implying certain domestic political opponents of Trump, which is completely false. But maybe you're just referring to some officials within Venezuela or Cuba?
New book about Trump (Score:2, Interesting)
Quote:
"In some ways, I knew him better than even his family did because I bore witness to the real man, in strip clubs, shady business meetings, and in the unguarded moments when he revealed who he really was: a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man," Cohen wrote in the 3,700-word release.
Re: (Score:1)
Also buy writing such a book... isn't he opening himself up to legal issues, since he was the perpetrator of much of anything he is accusing Trump of as well as the fact that as a former laywer of Trump he is probably still legally bound in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's barely a hair away from nationalization. He's effectively forcing the sale of a foreign company to a local one if they want to continue operating in the country. It's a more...corporatist form of nationalization.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, this is a rare practice limited to a handful of authoritarian states and tinpot dictatorships. China is frequently criticized for having a far less stringent requirement than Trump wants to impose on Tiktok.
Re: (Score:1)
You wanna start a company in another country MOVE THERE, at least become a permanent resident.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad idea, but it's not the law. And having a world leader apply special conditions to people or companies based on their whims instead of simply applying the law equally is a recipe for dictatorship. But maybe you don't care about that either, because he'd be *your* favored dictator.
Re: Election distraction... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't complain about China being far less stringent than Trump, people complain about the requirements to open a business in China, the most stringent ones summarized here:
https://www.chinalawblog.com/2... [chinalawblog.com]
Contrast with the requirements Trump has pulled out of his ass and applied to Tiktok in particular.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Over 160,000 people dead from COVID-19
Countless number of people in detention areas awaiting trials to see if they are legally in the US or not.
Riots in the streets against the police because police force has been emboldened to act on their racist tendencies.
Unemployment at an all time high.
Farmers blocked from selling internationally
Foreign countries are manipulating our oil prices
Broken treaties with countries, that have allowed us to be safe, or in the process of insuring our safety.
Mounting Deficit over
Re: Election distraction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh. Trumps fault, even though the majority of the deaths are from 3 states which completely ignored the CDC directives.
The reason we're not re-opening right now is because a shit-ton of dipshits made wearing masks a political thing and resulted in a frightening surge of infections. Yes, Trump's fault.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No, the reason we aren't opening up is because too many people are scared of their own shadows and afraid to face life on it's terms. This virus WILL be around for damn near forever, and at some point in the near future you WILL catch it, and please don't give me the crap about a vaccine. The current batch of vaccines will be no better than the current flu shots which gives you something like 50%-60% efficacy. The only people that should be protected are the young for the older people with either compromise
Re: Election distraction... (Score:2)
Meanwhile we're watching enviously as other countries re-open.
Re: (Score:3)
scared of their own shadows and afraid to face life on it's terms.
Do us a favour and go out and step in front of a car. Face it on its terms. What are you some kind of chickenshit?
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, that your best response. Let me guess, you are one of the smart-ones who believe that you will never, ever catch "the rona". Well now, are you a special little tator-in-the-bag. Please, by all means, stay locked up in your basement in fear, but you better not get any deliveries because then you are forcing others to do your dirty work of getting exposed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is where the US is heading as well so what's the beef? Different course, same results.
Re: Election distraction... (Score:2)
And had my comment been on the merits of reopening you might have a leg to stand on. Since it concerned the number of deaths and states from a certain political faction explicitly ignoring the early March CDC guidelines, and specifically in the case of that sack of shit Cuomo until late May, you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
But your statements flies in the face of real numbers. My state (MI) which was hard based upon our population numbers is now in single digit deaths. Hope you read that correctly: single digits. The decision to stay closed is not based upon logic and reason but pure emotional fear...period.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can throw off that 'I am rather conservative' charade, if you have nothing to say about the race based hatred initiated by both BLM and Antifa in cities that are all (but one - Ft Worth) run by Democrats. When people are forced to kneel in solidarity w/ BLM by people totally unknown to them, when stores are looted in the name of reparations, In these cities, while police are being defunded, Individual citizens who are forced to take up guns b'cos the police won't come are then prosecuted by DAs. You
Re: (Score:2)
Willful dumbfuckery. The only reason for BLM's existence is that to a large number of Americans, black lives simply do not matter. Conservatives that are normally all about gun rights and keeping the government off your back will see people like Tamir Rice or John Crawford gunned down in a matter of seconds for holding not-firearms in an open carry state and call
Re: (Score:1)
Make a suggestion...stop watching YouTube videos and such and actually get out and meet real people because you have absolutely no idea just what it means to be a Conservative or even met one on your online forums.
You say we don't know what Antifa stands for, but that is not the case. Antifa was started by self-proclaimed communists and they have never diverged from that 'ism. They are against fascism because they are just the same fanaticism but only on the left....far left which is even worse in my opinio
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The only reason for BLM's existence is that to a large number of Americans, black lives simply do not matter
No, black people are only 13% of the population. That's not a large number of Americans.
The only reason for BLM's existence is to push and promote societal unrest in the hopes of pursuing a marxist agenda.
Re: (Score:1)
do you even know what Antifa is short for? Anti-Fascist. Meaning the only people who whine about them are....fascists.
So if I set up an organisation called "We Love Everybody and Want World Peace" you'll give it your full support? Even though its policies and actions involve dismembering you, your family and your pets, setting the bleeding limbs on fire and pissing on them before feeding the charred remains to my pigs?
Or perhaps you might agree that calling something X has absolutely no fucking relevance whatsoever to its actions, or to criticism of its actions.
Just how fucking stupid are you if you think that critique of
Re: (Score:2)
That's Trump pretending that asylum seekers are all criminals trying to cross the border. Many of those asylum seekers are fleeing situations created by Obama, does that present a left brain/right brain conflict for you?
The Dems want open borders.
Stupid lies don't help your case. Not one of the 18,000 democratic primary candidates for president was for open borders. The closest was Julian Castro, who wanted to make undocumented b
Re: (Score:2)
That's Trump pretending that asylum seekers are all criminals trying to cross the border. Many of those asylum seekers are fleeing situations created by Obama, does that present a left brain/right brain conflict for you?
The Dems want open borders.
Stupid lies don't help your case. Not one of the 18,000 democratic primary candidates for president was for open borders. The closest was Julian Castro, who wanted to make undocumented border crossings a civil offense rather than a misdemeanor - but that's still illegal, so not. an. open. border.
Words are cheap, actions speak volumes. Every city that wants to be a asylum city is led by a mayor and a legislature with a 'D', and no Democrat is speaking up against it. So I guess I will clarify, open boarders is the unspoken belief of the Democratic party.
Bitch, please, if Bloomberg had bombarded his way into more terms as mayor he'd be be cracking down more than deBalsio is. Same for every other city you're whining about. This is a partisan fail in any case as Democrats are just the other party of right wing police state assholes.
Just because one dumbass is a bigger dumbass doesn't mean anything.
Yeah. It is. Rather than blowing off the approaching pandemic and making Fauci lie about the effectiveness of masks, Trump could have encouraged universal mask use and like a Republican senator suggested (I forget his name) the government takes over 85% of payroll costs of employers.
The defunding story was bogus. They were never defunded even though Trump wanted to and the should have for royaling screwing the pooch on this situation.
Everyone stays home if they can't telecommute, but is still an employee of John Deere or Microsoft or whatever.
That is what damn near every b
Re: (Score:2)
Oh forgot..
Obama doubled America's oil production. Whining about supply and demand from other countries is pointless.
Obama did no such thing. He and Biden tried in vain to shut down the leases, but it was the Republican Congress that opened the west up for shale production.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, if Trump was elected as a Democrat, he will would had probably just use some of the democratic talking points and cause just as much problems, I expect a good portion of the Dems would be quite or praise him. Because of tribalism.
The only real problem with this analysis is that the Democrats don't tend to operate as a cohesive unit like the Republicans do. It is more likely that there would have been major divisions within the Democratic party if Trump had run under their banner. The Republicans, on the other hand, have tended to act as a united body and support anything that Trump has done (so far anyway). There have been very few dissenting voices among the Republicans (with regards to Trump's actions and on policies as a whole).
T
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do - when it comes to their real, private positions and not the public positions they tell their base, aka lies. Democrats are the other party for racist warmonger corporatists, and also hate the left.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that, but pretty much ever single thing on your list, Obama did as well and did it first. Just to pick one item, it was Obama who turned ICE from a tiny program into the gestapo it is today, deporting more immigrants than Trump in the process.
https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You post as if "banning TikTok" is all he's doing.
I hope you understand that many countries are making moves against China because China keeps expanding and taking over territories that were democratic and/or disputed. They plan to go after disputed Japanese islands next. Even Australia, who has generally remained neutral, is no longer neutral in this matter and complained to the UN. Then we have the Chinese government paying Chinese workers in the US to spy and steal trade secrets and collect data on US ci
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean the bodies piling up in retirement homes in NY, MI, NJ, and PA because the state leaders couldn't be bothered to read the entire federal guidance on returning infected seniors to retirement homes?
Re: (Score:2)
You post as if "banning TikTok" is all he's doing.
Look, no matter how you polish it, we all know WHY he's going after TikTok. It could be, by coincidence, the rightest thing in the world to do, but if he's going to do it for the wrong reasons then we don't expect him to do it correctly. How happy are you going to be if a procedural error ends up solidifying TikTok's existence in the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
You post as if "banning TikTok" is all he's doing.
Look, no matter how you polish it, we all know WHY he's going after TikTok. It could be, by coincidence, the rightest thing in the world to do, but if he's going to do it for the wrong reasons then we don't expect him to do it correctly. How happy are you going to be if a procedural error ends up solidifying TikTok's existence in the USA?
Can you explain "we all know WHY he's going after TikTok"?
I don't know who "we" or "WHY" is in this sentence.
Re: (Score:1)
Google "Tulsa rally".
Re:Election distraction... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you complain about bodies piling? Where?
Texas? New York?
Or are you talking about US cities where Trump offered federal aid to places like Portland, but the Democratic leaders said no and even complained about him wanted to stop the crime? So, instead, he sent officials to those places solely to protect federal property
"officials" in uniform without names or insignia. Protecting federal property like scooping up protesters without any indication that they were threats to federal property, holding them for hours, and then releasing them without having charged them with anything because there was nothing to charge them with? That's illegal.
You mean those issues?
No, we mean Covid-19, which Trump continues to mismanage so badly that it appears deliberate.
Re: (Score:2)
Covid-19? A hoax by the Democrats /s
Re: (Score:1)
""officials" in uniform without names or insignia."
Actually, in the incident that everyone was referring to, they were in uniform and also had insignias. Did you bother doing any research? That's rhetoric because anyone who promotes the left usually hasn't and instead chooses to blindly follow. That's why they're called sheep. You can refer to this article that has an actual picture of them in uniform with their arm badges. And yes, many people were charged. You cannot perform a proper investigation with qu
Re: (Score:1)
The Tiktok ban - and the ban on other apps - makes complete sense once one recognizes that the data of these apps that people store are inputs to Chinese AI systems that can be used to refine their cyberwarfare capabilities. Any AI system is only as good as the amount of data put into it, and having maxed them out for their own citizens, China's now trying to get the data on as many other people in the world. India dealt them a major blow in this department, since they have a population as big as China's,
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you understand that many countries are making moves against China
Not really. A few local countries has a beef with China. In the west the only countries making moves against them are the USA, and the UK because they are desperate for a trade deal with the USA.
Re: (Score:1)
US, UK, India, Australia, Japan, Germany, and really the EU in general.
Yeah just a few locals :/
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a trading hardon against China, nothing to do with China's actions locally.
The UK doesn't have a beef with China. They are actively bending over to China to get a trade deal up, but are in the process of capitulating to the USA on everything because they are desperate to have a trade agreement with some wealthy country before Brexit. It was quite funny to see the negotiation give China what they wanted only a day later to change their mind because the USA asked them to. The UK has to be the weake
Re: (Score:3)
Being forbidden to be paid *is* a real world problem. To the one that it happens to it may be the major real world problem.
Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it isn't a real problem.
Plenty of time to give two weeks notice! (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe RicRol. They should never gonna give you up.
Re:Plenty of time to give two weeks notice! (Score:4, Funny)
. . .nor will they lt you down ,or run around and hurt you. . . ;)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they set up the network? The software may be doable in that period of time (others have said so, I don't really know what it does), the network of uses *isn't*. And from what I hear that's the only value of Tiktok....which doesn't mean it isn't a real value. Advertisers pay for access to viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Did their lawyers not tell them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sovereign immunity is a thing. The courts decided a long time ago that lawsuits are not the way to air your grievances with the government if they are acting within their powers. It ain't a catch all, government offices have been successfully sued for not doing their job before or over stepping their power. But I don't see how that would apply here. Tik Tok is gathering data on US citizens and they are indirectly owned and controlled by the CCP. That makes them a national security threat. Banning them is well within the President's power as commander in chief of the military.
Re: (Score:3)
I understood from the summary that the lawsuit has to do with the company not being able to pay their American employees. I don't think that challenges the President from issuing orders he believes a national security threat.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"believes" is a national security threat. Nevermind the dozens of security DVRs made in China, sold every day, and connected to the Internet. Or any other of dozens of real threats. The real threat are the users of the platform who embarrassed him at the Tulsa rally.
This is a sham order not made in good faith. It's very challengeable on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
They connect to cameras. What else do you do with them?
Re:Did their lawyers not tell them? (Score:5, Informative)
lawsuits are not the way to air your grievances with the government if they are acting within their powers. It ain't a catch all, government offices have been successfully sued for [...] over stepping their power. But I don't see how that would apply here.
The law that Trump’s orders cite for his authority enumerates a list of activities that the President is disallowed from blocking under the guise of “national security” (presumably to prevent a rogue President from curbing behavior that might challenge their power), including many activities that seem to apply to a company like TikTok. They’ll probably start their challenge there. The way they’re being impacted merely gives them standing for the suit.
Re: (Score:2)
The way they’re being impacted merely gives them standing for the suit.
The way they anticipate being impacted merely gives them standing for the suit.
They won't be impacted for a month. Are they suing because they won't get paid, because they don't want to be part of Microsoft, or because they don't like Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
The way they anticipate being impacted merely gives them standing for the suit.
They won't be impacted for a month. Are they suing because they won't get paid, because they don't want to be part of Microsoft, or because they don't like Trump?
It doesn't really matter what the reason they are suing is. As long as you have standing you can sue anyone for anything. Whether the lawsuit will be successful or not only relies on the merits of the case so again the reason the lawsuit was initiated has no relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I follow.... what are you suggesting are the actual differences between each of the reason for suing, standing for suing, and merit for suing?
While I'll agree they aren't all the same thing, I'm trying to figure out how you think the reason they are suing doesn't matter if you still need some standing to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:
The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As long as the party involved has a reason to sue they have standing (as stated above). The question that was asked was:
Are they suing because they won't get paid, because they don't want to be part of Microsoft, or because they don't like Trump?
It doesn't really matter which of these reasons (if any apply) since it is quite obvious that the "party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question". Just because the "party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question" doesn't mean that the suit will find that they are actually affected
Re: (Score:2)
You're citing his basis for authority in that law, but I was pointing out that the same law carves out a list of exceptions to that authority. Your Wikipedia link doesn't mention them, but if you check the actual text of Section 1702 Subsection (b) [cornell.edu], you'll find the list of exceptions that I was talking about. Subsections (1) and (3) are particularly applicable. I've quoted the relevant portions below:
(b) Exceptions to grant of authority
The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—
(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value; [...or]
(3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. [...]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine the President could have worded the decree as "illegal to pay, invest, or give..." rather than "any transaction with". That would have allowed TikTok to pay it's US employees, suppliers to get paid, etc etc. Ostensibly that would be better than what you've got - TikTok would still have to shell out $$$ for all on-going liabilities, but wouldn't be able to collect any money from anyone to pay them. Even cleverer wording could have meant that the parent company could cover TikTok for all liabiliti
Re:Did their lawyers not tell them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sovereign immunity is a thing. The courts decided a long time ago that lawsuits are not the way to air your grievances with the government if they are acting within their powers.
You act as if the Law still means anything. It doesn't, and I suspect it hasn't for some time. Politicians and judges from both sides of the line ignore it when its in their interests to do so. This is one of the reasons why Lawfare has become so popular as a political tool. Don't like what a President or Congress is doing? Sue. If the judge is one of yours, there's a pretty good chance you'll win. If the law in question is clearly in opposition to the ruling, the judge will usually just give you some twisted legalize that, in English means "I'm opposed to this on moral grounds, so I rule against it anyway, and thus set a new precedent. Reverse me, I dare you".
Why do you think filling the judicial ranks is such an important objective for both parties? You didn't think it had anything to do with upholding the Law, did you? It's just a matter of getting more guys on your team.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easier to convince 5 judges than 218 congressmen and 60 senators that your pet regulation/policy is legal.
Re: (Score:1)
lawyer: that's not what sovereign immunity doe=s (Score:5, Informative)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. You have to pay me first if you want that.
Sovereign immunity doesn't stop all suits against government; it is primarily a bar to awarding monetary damages in tort (but has other variants).
Ancient writs such as mandamus and prohibits allow action against government to order or prohibit the taking of some act, including lower courts (that's what's being hashed out in the Flynn case at the moment; it is in the courts for a writ of mandamus to the trial judge. Executive agent yes are more common targets for these writs than lower courts).
But what likely *is* an issue here is whether employees have "standing" to bring the suit. They may, but I'm skeptical. For example, congresscritters tend to sue presidential administrations of the other party, and frequently get knocked out of court over this.
to oversimplify, a party generally needs a direct interest in the litigation, while not getting paid is an indirect consequence of the direct action against the employer.
Again, there are exceptions heaped upon exceptions in this area, but my initial impression, subject to data and research, is that the employees lack standing.
hawk, esq.
Re: (Score:1)
BTW, you already got your claim - of at least $1,200.00 from the US Treasury. Unemployed? It is a lot more.
Stop parroting propaganda (Score:1)
This is all just CIA derp to create the narrative that TikTok is bad, mmmkay? Because the US government doesn't like a popular social media platform that doesn't have the NSA's hand deep up its ass, from both the servers themselves to the people who run it.
Even if you don't support banning the platform, parroting the narrative that TikTok bad is indirectly supporting its banning. Like how Bernie Sanders makes a big show out of opposing the American wars on Iraq, Libya, and Syria, but man the guys who ruled
Re: (Score:2)
Arg. So many TikTok stories I posted this comment to the wrong one. Meant this for the propaganda piece on underage users.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do I have to be any of that. I have personal hatred for all things social media and welcome all of their deaths.
Bring back the old fashioned phpBB forums and closer nit communities like Slashdot. Putting all humans in one kennel was a terrible experiment and I hope it ends soon. So, although he's doing it for stupid reasons; I welcome the demise of TikTok. One less shitty piece of software in the wild.