So banning a public square has nothing to do with free speech?
"A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more."
"The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”
They've determined that it's not a violation of free speech because China, and that it's not a bill of attainder because China. You could replace "China" with anything.
What does it mean to be a "foreign adversary?" When did voters get a say in that? When Democrats (and every media outlet) were accusing Trump of being a secret Russian agent, and people who supported him of being traitors, would it have been legal (and not a "punishment" but a "prophylactic" as the appeals court said about TikTok) for the legislature to limit their free speech by name?
The US has a long history of banning foreign-owned media; newspapers, radio stations and tv stations have been the traditional targets. The Federal Communications Act set limits on foreign ownership of broadcast licenses by prohibiting foreign entities from owning more than a certain percentage of a broadcast licensee. This is actually a large part of the reason Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, decided to become an American citizen.
Laws banning the foreign-ownership of influential apps seem like the modern day progression of the original FCA.
The Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech
