The Supreme Court on Friday weighed in on a law that could decide the fate of TikTok, the hugely popular social media platform with about 170 million users.
Congress enacted the law out of concern that the app's owner, based in China, was susceptible to influence from the Chinese government and posed a national risk. The move would effectively ban TikTok from operating in the US unless owner ByteDance sells it by January 19th.
Here are some important points:
It seemed likely that the court would uphold the law.
While judges across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, the overall tone and argument was that lawyers for TikTok and its users argued that the First Amendment prevents Congress from enacting laws. seemed to suggest greater skepticism about the claim.
The questioning began with two conservative members of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., pointing out that the law did not directly affect the American company TikTok, but rather its Chinese parent company. He suggested that it was ByteDance. .
Another conservative judge, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, ruled that the Chinese government could use the information TikTok collects from tens of millions of American teenagers and young people in their 20s to help them grow older. He pointed out that when they leave the country, they may end up “training spies, circling people and blackmailing them.” Working in a national security agency or military.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked why TikTok couldn't just create or buy another algorithm instead of using ByteDance's.
Another liberal judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, said he believed the law was about association, not speech. She suggested that banning TikTok from engaging with Chinese companies would be similar to banning Americans from engaging with foreign terrorist organizations for national security reasons. (The Supreme Court recognized this as constitutional.)
Still, some judges have criticized key parts of the government's justification for the law: that China “secretly” forces TikTok to manipulate the content it shows Americans to achieve its geopolitical goals; They were skeptical about the risks of having users collect data.
Conservative Justices Kagan and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch both emphasized that everyone now knows that China is behind TikTok. They are interested in whether the government's interest in preventing “covert” use of its platforms by foreign adversaries could be achieved in less heavy-handed ways, such as by attaching labels warning users of the risks. It seemed like it was.
Lawyers for TikTok and its users argued that the law is unconstitutional.
Two lawyers, Noel Francisco, who represents both TikTok and ByteDance, and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents TikTok users, argued that the law violates the First Amendment. They suggested that concerns about the possibility that the information that U.S. users see on the platforms could be manipulated by the Chinese government are not enough to justify the law.
Francisco said the government of a free country “has no legitimate interest in preventing foreign propaganda” and cannot constitutionally try to prevent Americans from being “persuaded by Chinese misinformation.” I insisted that I couldn't. He said it targeted the content of speech and was not permissible under the First Amendment.
Fisher said concerns that China would use its control over the platform to sow doubts about democracy or promote posts pushing pro-China, anti-American ideas outweigh concerns about foreign terrorism. They argued that the basis for justifying interference with freedom of speech was weak.
“The case is over because the government can't say 'national security,'” Fischer said. Must be,” he added. “”
The Biden administration has defended Congress' right to legislate.
Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger argued that Congress had the legal authority to enact the law and that it did not violate the First Amendment. He said it's important to recognize that once TikTok is freed from foreign regulation, the law leaves speech on TikTok unrestricted.
“All of the same speeches that are happening on TikTok could happen post-sale,” she says. “This law doesn't regulate that at all. It's not saying you can't have pro-China speech or anti-American speech. It's not regulating algorithms. Not.”
She further added: “TikTok could use the exact same algorithm and show the same content by the same users if it were able to do so. We're just trying to surgically remove the ability to control the platform.”
The court does not appear to be willing to wait for Mr. Trump's decision.
President-elect Donald J. Trump asked the Supreme Court to issue an injunction that would delay the law from taking effect until after he takes office on January 20th.
Trump previously shared the view that China's control of TikTok posed an intolerable national security risk, but changed his tune after meeting with a billionaire Republican donor who owns a stake in the parent company. .
If the court upholds the law, TikTok would be effectively banned in the United States on January 19, Francisco said. He asked the court to suspend the law from taking effect to delay the deadline, saying, “It just gives everyone a little bit of breathing space.” He added that it could be a “different world” for TikTok after January 20.
But the justices gave little focus to that idea, suggesting they did not take it seriously. Trump's brief asking the court to hold off on the matter beyond the end of President Biden's term so that President Biden can address the issue includes John Sauer, a Democrat nominated to be the next attorney general. The petition has long been a rhetorical compliment of Trump, but lacks substance.
