# Why is a newspaper is protected by the 1st amendment but an app is not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2025, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089 "2025-01-17T21:45:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/21 "2025-01-18T01:40:55Z")
Just saying that it’s not as black and white as your post made it seem. People use TikTok to associate with other people. Will the federal law interfere with that? If federal law interferes with the SDMB, I potentially lose contact with a number of people I associate with. The First Amendment is not just about speech. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/22 "2025-01-18T01:47:54Z")
Related factual question: If the Chinese government were to use direct mail to send propaganda to all U.S. addresses, would that be protected by the first amendment? I’m thinking no. AFAIK we never jammed Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw. But I think it would have been legal. Now, would it have been a good idea to jam them? No. It would show we did not trust our troops. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/23 "2025-01-18T01:53:11Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > People use TikTok to associate with other people. Will the federal law interfere with that? …that’s not how freedom of speech works. I can’t create a delivery service in coordination with the Houthis and then argue that it’s ok because people send letters through my HouthiExpress and those letters are protected by the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/24 "2025-01-18T01:54:13Z")
Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/25 "2025-01-18T01:54:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of speech From which part of the constitution is it considered implied? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/26 "2025-01-18T01:55:55Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > From which part of the constitution is it considered implied?. Actually you already answered this: > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that [the 1st Amendment protects freedom of association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_association). So I have no idea what your point was. The first amendment would not protect HouthiExpress, nor TikTok. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2025, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/27 "2025-01-18T02:09:13Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > If tiktok were to shutdown their app in the US but keep the website (which has largely the same functionality as the app) could that be shutdown by the government? Or would it be protected? AIUI, the law targets US companies that do business with Tik Tok. That’s Apple and Google, of course, who host the app on their own servers. It would _also_ target, say, any cloud providers in the US who host Tik Tok infrastructure. Web traffic coming from outside of the country doesn’t represent a business arrangement between ISPs and Tik Tok. It’s possible that the apps could continue to work after the ban, as they’d receive traffic from outside the US and nothing in the law requires users to uninstall it or Apple/Google to force it off people’s phones. But it’s unlikely, as that would leave millions of orphaned apps that TikTok would have no control over. Eta: if the app does stop working in the US, that will be TikTok’s choice. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2025, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/28 "2025-01-22T03:42:53Z")
The ban pertains to ownership of media, not freedom of speech. The two have been separate issues under the First Amendment since at least 1927, when Congress first limited the right to own broadcast stations. To answer the OP’s implicit question, newspapers are less amenable to regulation because there is less to regulate. They don’t use public airwaves or other public goods, and you can have as many newspapers as there are people so there is little reason to regulate ownership. Apps and websites operate in a more tightly controlled ecosystem and share networks which theoretically caps the number that can operate. More importantly, a newspaper can’t collect your data on behalf of a hostile government. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2025, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089/29 "2025-01-26T15:09:03Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Isn’t RT banned? Nope, some of it’s US employees were listed by the state dept as unregistered foreign agents, and the cable companies decided to drop it, but it was never banned. If you really want to watch some Putin propaganda you can go online now and watch it: [https://www.rt.com/](https://www.rt.com/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-a-newspaper-is-protected-by-the-1st-amendment-but-an-app-is-not/1013089.md?page=1)