• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    isn’t it unconstitutional to target specific entities with laws?

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Yes, but the courts used some bullshit reasoning to uphold it anyway. They said it didn’t constitute a punishment because the law required a sale rather than a confiscation, and because the company could theoretically re-enter the market with a different app (lol).

      I suppose it’s similar to eminent domain where the government can force you to sell your house if it’s in the way of something like a rail line, but it’s not considered a punishment since you’re compensated for it (at whatever price they decide is fair). Basically, the government is allowed to fuck with you quite a bit so long as they can provide a justification for why they’re doing it that isn’t personal.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        thank you; that was very informative. I tried to look it up but every article seemed to approach it from the first amendment angle and I didn’t find anything about equal protection.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The phrase you’re looking for for a law that targets a specific entity is “Bill of Attainder.”

          This was my source for the info, that includes the text of the court ruling.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        it’s called the law of the land, not the law of the people. if laws don’t cover non-american entities then they can’t commit crimes.