Connect with us

Montana

Montana Compares TikTok to ‘Cancer-Causing Radio’ in Ban Defense

Published

on

Montana Compares TikTok to ‘Cancer-Causing Radio’ in Ban Defense


Montana’s lawsuit-hungry attorney general Austin Knudsen wants US courts to think of TikTok less like a light-hearted home for viral trends and more akin to the harbinger of a life-threatening disease. In recent court filings defending his state’s unprecedented ban on the short-form video app, Knudsen compared TikTok to a “cancer-causing radio,” something he said lawmakers would likewise have a duty to prohibit, freedom of expression concerns be damned. Restricting the app may hamper some online speech, the conservative AG admitted, but that tradeoff is necessary to combat “data gathering by a hostile foreign state.”

“Our legislators and Governor Gianforte did the right thing in prohibiting TikTok from operating in Montana as long as it is under the control of a foreign adversary,” Knudsen said in a statement. “My office looks forward to vigorously defending the law as this case proceeds.”

Knudsen’s defense comes on the heels of a pair of lawsuits launched by Montana-based TikTok creators and the company itself seeking to have courts kill the law before it takes effect in January. If Montana succeeds, the law would fine app stores up to $10,000 per day for allowing downloads of the app in the state. Opponents of the ban, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue it could close off a major forum for online speech, which would amount to a clear violation of TikTok’s users’ First Amendment Rights.

Advertisement

The AG countered that point in his brief though, arguing state lawmakers like himself still possess the ability to regulate or ban dangerous products even if they can simultaneously be used as a vehicle for protected speech. To buttress that point, Knudsen pointed to a 1986 Supreme Court decision that denied a bookstore First Amendment protections because it had become a site for prostitution. The First Amendment, he argued, only extends so far.

“Were it otherwise, Montana would be powerless to ban a cancer-causing radio merely because that radio also transmitted protected speech, or to ban sports-betting apps merely because those apps also shared informative videos teaching their users the intricacies of sports gambling,” Knudsen said.

Montana AG compares TikTok ban to mandatory school dress code policies

Knudsen went on to compare the state’s TikTok ban to a law mandating school uniforms. Opponents to mandatory dress codes previously argued such requirements would inhibit student’s right to expression, only to have courts uphold the rule because it still lets students express themselves via other outlets, like their voices. Similarly, Knudsen said the TikTok ban is akin to uniforms because it only restricts one avenue or particular product and doesn’t ban video sharing from other competing apps like YouTube. Montana TikTokers, he suggested, could simply express themselves using another app.

But multiple TikTok creators opposing the ban have told Gizmodo it would be difficult if not impossible to recreate or carry over their same audience on TikTok to other platforms. Some users like veteran and metal sculptor Rick Baker told Gizmodo that TikTok has helped form niche online communities where other veterans can connect and deal with the trauma of war. Baker fears that could simply vanish if TikTok is made inaccessible.

“It would be a huge hit for me,” Baker told Gizmodo. “I don’t think lawmakers understand the impact this can have on small business.”

Advertisement

TikTok’s lawyers similarly took issue with the state’s apparent effort to craft legislation that appears written to address a federal nation security issue. Knudsen pushed back against that argument as well, saying states with small populations like his, which is made up of just over 1 million residents, also have an interest in defending national security. Montana, the AG noted, is one of 45 states currently investigating TikTok’s safety and data harvesting features for evidence of foreign surveillance. TikTok maintains it doesn’t share US user data with the Chinese government, though a former Byte-Dance executive and multiple whistleblowers have alleged that’s not the case.

It’s difficult to disentangle growing national unease over TikTok’s Chinese ownership from the Montana ban, a fact Knudsen notes in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. The AG credited part of the bipartisan support the bill received to growing anxiety and nonstop news coverage documenting a pair of Chinese spy balloons that crossed in Montana earlier this year. The balloons hovered around Big Sky Country just as the explicitly China-weary TikTok bill was being considered by lawmakers.

“The Chinese Communist Party did us a hell of a favor, that balloon floating all the way across Montana,” Knudsen told the Journal. “That absolutely galvanized some legislators.”

TikTok ban could set ‘worrying precedent for access to speech’

An expert in the laws of online speech pushed back on Knudsen’s argument. NetChoice associate director of litigation Nicole Saad Bembridge worried a court ruling accepting the state’s reasoning could set a “worrying precedent where Americans’ access to information on the internet can be dependent on local politicians’ individual preferences.” NetChoice has vigorously opposed the Montana ban and filed briefs in support of creators.

“Montana tries to skirt the First Amendment’s constraints by calling the ban a regulation of conduct rather than speech,” Saad Bembridge said. “But if states had free rein to restrict speech by simply calling it ‘conduct,’ freedom of expression would be a hollow guarantee.”

Advertisement

Saad Bembridge said we’ve really already been here before. Montana’s argument, she said, follows in close step to a short-lived 2020 effort by the Trump administration to ban TikTok country-wide on devices on national security grounds. In that case, a US District Court struck down the attempt after finding a lack of evidence the ban would actually address national security concerns.

“This ban should be treated no differently,” Bembridge added.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case


What’s New

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a landmark climate decision that declared the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces an August 2023 ruling by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, who found that Montana’s practices violated its residents’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

This pivotal case, spearheaded by a group of young plaintiffs aged 6 to 23, represented a milestone for climate advocates seeking judicial intervention to compel governmental action on climate change.

What To Know

On Wednesday in a 6-1 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the August 2023 decision.

Advertisement

The court’s decision strikes down a state policy that prohibited the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in granting permits for fossil fuel development.

The state had previously appealed the ruling by Seeley, and arguments were heard in July, in which the state argued that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change.

Dale Schowengerdt, representing Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and state environmental agencies, argues before the Montana Supreme Court on July 10, 2024, in Helena, Montana, in the youth climate lawsuit Held v. Montana. The Montana Supreme…


Thom Bridge/Independent Record/ AP

Chief Justice Mike McGrath dismissed the state’s argument that Montana’s emissions are insignificant on a global scale, likening the defense to an “everyone else is doing it” excuse.

McGrath wrote, “The right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless if the State abdicates its responsibility to protect it.”

What Are People Saying

Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs said, “With the ruling now in place, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits.”

Advertisement

Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority: “Plaintiffs may enforce their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment against the State, which owes them that affirmative duty, without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire. Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

Republican Governor Greg Gianforte said in a statement that the state was still reviewing the decision, but said it will lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.

Pushback From State Leadership

The ruling has sparked a backlash from Gianforte, who criticized the court for what he described as judicial overreach. He warned the decision could invite an onslaught of lawsuits, increase energy costs for Montanans and hinder the state’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.

“This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”

Gianforte also convened energy stakeholders earlier this week to discuss boosting production to meet rising demand, emphasizing the need for “unleashing American energy” to maintain grid stability.

Advertisement

The Plaintiffs’ Perspective

For the 16 young plaintiffs, the court’s decision validates their personal struggles with the tangible effects of climate change. In a Wednesday statement, lead plaintiff Rikki Held called the ruling “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”

During the trial, the plaintiffs described how worsening wildfires, droughts and diminishing snowpack have disrupted their lives, polluted the air and depleted vital natural resources. They argued that the state’s failure to address these challenges imperils their future and violates their constitutional rights.

What Happens Next

The ruling has positioned Montana as a flashpoint in the national debate over climate accountability, potentially inspiring similar legal challenges across the United States.

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI

Published

on

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI


BOZEMAN — A pregnant woman from Sheridan is claiming she was wrongfully arrested by the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) for allegedly driving under the influence during a traffic stop near Bozeman.

“I was just pretty shocked. And I constantly told him I’m pregnant, and I haven’t drunk in probably eight months,” says Alyssa Johnson.

Alyssa is a photographer from Sheridan who, at 22 weeks pregnant, was pulled over by an MHP trooper on Dec. 1, 2024 for an alleged traffic violation.

“I have a stutter, and he thought I was slurring so he pretty much said can you step out of the car. Made me do all these kinds of tests,” says Alyssa.

Advertisement

Alyssa explains that she has severe dyslexia, which makes understanding directions, and completing any sort of test, difficult.

“I mean, Alyssa, when she was in school, she used to have extra time to take an exam and she’d have questions read to her,” explains Alyssa’s husband, Tim Johnson.

Alyssa says in addition to her mental handicap, she was in a state of panic during the traffic stop—affecting her ability to give a proper breathalyzer result.

“They were saying that since I couldn’t breathe through the breathalyzer and the testing wasn’t doing good, they arrested me and pretty much took me to the hospital for more blood work,” she says.

A written statement by her therapist confirms Alyssa’s dyslexia diagnosis.

Advertisement

And after the incident, the couple got a third-party blood test—because the one conducted by law enforcement could take up to eight weeks to return.

The blood test, provided by the Johnsons, shows negative for any type of drug.

Alyssa says, “I take a prenatal, an aspirin for my blood pressure, and stuff for my heartburn, like Tums. Just like simple stuff.”

Tim explains that in addition to expecting their second child, they’re currently building a home—making the cost of bail and towing a hard hit on finances.

He says, “We have a budget to stick to and the budget doesn’t include any unexpected costs like this.”

Advertisement

Tim says this is an opportunity for police to receive better training on mental impairments and hopes that charges will be dropped from Alyssa’s record.

“And I understand they have to do their job too. I mean, support police. But this wasn’t right to do,” she says.

The couple says they have filed a formal complaint with MHP.

I reached out to MHP for comment but did not receive a response regarding the incident. We will update this story if we hear back.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Montana's Weather Update: Low Chance Of White Christmas Revealed

Published

on

Montana's Weather Update: Low Chance Of White Christmas Revealed


While our prospects for a “white Christmas” in Montana are still looking dim, a blast of vigorous winter weather promises to make travel tough Wednesday, with high wind warnings, and in some places winter storm warnings.

It’s part of a rather odd winter to date, as we hit mid-December with limited snow in the valleys of Western Montana, but more normal snowfall at the higher elevations.

National Weather Service forecasters have issued wind warnings for many corners of the state, with winds gusting 20 to 30 miles per hour in most locations, with the potential to top 50 miles per hour in the Bitterroot, the Madison, along the passes over the Divide, eastern Flathead County and the Northern Rocky Mountain Front. Some locations in North Central Montana could see gusts top 60 miles per hour this afternoon.

A brief warm-up, then cold

Advertisement

While snow levels will rise, freezing rains will be a problem in some areas, and then temperatures will plunge on Thursday. Northeast Montana will drop to 5-below to 5-above zero, with some areas in the single digits in Southeast Montana.

The severe cold isn’t expected west of the Divide. Forecasters expect overnight and morning temperatures in the Western Montana valleys to drop back into the 20s through the weekend.

And the forecast still doesn’t look conducive to a “white Christmas” unless you’re at that cabin in the mountains or on the slopes. High pressure will move back into the region in the second half of this week and could last into next week.

READ MORE: Missoula Snowplows Stand Ready

Scenic Montana Airbnb Has a Sauna, Perfect for Holiday Getaway

Gallery Credit: Ashley

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending