Will Bode

Well, I'm not saying it's wrong exactly, but when I first read the law, I thought, of course it regulates the content of TikTok's speech in the sense that if TikTok stopped operating TikTok, and just said, from now on, we're only selling widgets on Amazon or operating a recipe site or something. I had assumed they would be not covered anymore.

Well, I'm not saying it's wrong exactly, but when I first read the law, I thought, of course it regulates the content of TikTok's speech in the sense that if TikTok stopped operating TikTok, and just said, from now on, we're only selling widgets on Amazon or operating a recipe site or something. I had assumed they would be not covered anymore.

And thus, the law really did turn on the content of their speech. What the court says is, because TikTok is singled out by name in the law, that's not true. Like maybe other companies that are being included because they satisfy the definition of people who run companies, et cetera, et cetera, maybe they could make a content-based argument.

And thus, the law really did turn on the content of their speech. What the court says is, because TikTok is singled out by name in the law, that's not true. Like maybe other companies that are being included because they satisfy the definition of people who run companies, et cetera, et cetera, maybe they could make a content-based argument.

But because TikTok is named and it's covered no matter what it does, the TikTok-specific designation doesn't turn on its speech. If TikTok stopped operating TikTok... it would still be covered by the law. Okay.

But because TikTok is named and it's covered no matter what it does, the TikTok-specific designation doesn't turn on its speech. If TikTok stopped operating TikTok... it would still be covered by the law. Okay.

I'm not saying it's wrong. My reaction, I don't, I don't remember that. Maybe that was discussed at argument and I just didn't pay as much attention to that part of the argument.

I'm not saying it's wrong. My reaction, I don't, I don't remember that. Maybe that was discussed at argument and I just didn't pay as much attention to that part of the argument.

So I feel like I don't know enough to know whether that's obviously wrong in some way, but it's a clever dodge and it's the kind of work I expect from Justice Curia.

So I feel like I don't know enough to know whether that's obviously wrong in some way, but it's a clever dodge and it's the kind of work I expect from Justice Curia.

Threatening us. Okay. Okay. So then that this data justification, while you could find out whether it's out of strict scrutiny, because maybe there are other things you could do. Court says, look, for intermediate scrutiny, this is good enough. The government spent several years bargaining with TikTok trying to find a workable solution before they concluded it wasn't going to work.

Threatening us. Okay. Okay. So then that this data justification, while you could find out whether it's out of strict scrutiny, because maybe there are other things you could do. Court says, look, for intermediate scrutiny, this is good enough. The government spent several years bargaining with TikTok trying to find a workable solution before they concluded it wasn't going to work.

I'm not sure that... I think in front of the Supreme Court, they didn't... Yeah, yeah, yeah. The justices had access to it, I believe, right? I don't... I mean, yes, they had access to it.

I'm not sure that... I think in front of the Supreme Court, they didn't... Yeah, yeah, yeah. The justices had access to it, I believe, right? I don't... I mean, yes, they had access to it.

And I think, yeah, and I think we just don't know, like, did the justices, like, also wall themselves off from it? Like, not... Look at it, or they look at it, and then decide not to consider it, or I don't think we know that. They must have looked at it to say about the reasoning. I don't know. It's not bad reasoning, is it?

And I think, yeah, and I think we just don't know, like, did the justices, like, also wall themselves off from it? Like, not... Look at it, or they look at it, and then decide not to consider it, or I don't think we know that. They must have looked at it to say about the reasoning. I don't know. It's not bad reasoning, is it?

And the court doesn't rely on that. And I think there's a, I think it's O'Brien, I think doctrinally the official story is the fact that some legislators supported this law for totally impermissible reasons is something we ignore in a speech case.

And the court doesn't rely on that. And I think there's a, I think it's O'Brien, I think doctrinally the official story is the fact that some legislators supported this law for totally impermissible reasons is something we ignore in a speech case.

So point one, the court rightly refrains from endorsing the content manipulation justification. Okay, good.

So point one, the court rightly refrains from endorsing the content manipulation justification. Okay, good.