[Cookingboy]

>No speech or information is being suppressed;

Except the whole reason for the TikTok bill is that information/speech will be under Chinese government control on TikTok and that can be weaponized.

So make up your mind, if you say TikTok is being banned for the possibility of "weaponized propaganda", then it is information being suppressed.

If you say it's not about information suppression, then you can't use the "Chinese propaganda" argument, which is used by pretty much all ban supporters.

>This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control, and directs the services that they can control to suppress any information they don't want people talking about.

That's exactly what it is.

[dgfitz]

> … if you say TikTok is being banned for the possibility of "weaponized propaganda", then it is information being suppressed

Eliminating weaponized propaganda is not even a little bit close to suppressing freedom of speech. Your argument falls apart there, like completely.

[Cookingboy]

Except it is. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that the First Amendment rights for Americans to receive foreign propaganda, even during the Cold War:

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/lamont-v-postmaster-...

I don't think you know what the First Amendment is. Not only does it guarantee freedom of expression, but also freedom to receive other's expression and speech.

The U.S. government is not allowed to ban any foreign books, movies, or even propaganda.

I really wish people like you do a little bit research before making such a confident statement like that.