Congress doesn’t agree on much these days. However, there is one thing, one of the most popular social media apps in the United States poses a serious threat to national security.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will begin giving its opinion. In the case that reached them at breakneck speed, the justices will hear oral arguments on a federal law that puts a modern twist on a classic challenge: balancing public protection with civilian protection. Freedoms.
Why did we write this?
Does freedom of expression cover entire media platforms? Critics of a US law that could ban TikTok argue that it ignores one of the core principles of the country’s free speech tradition: trust in the American people.
The federal government has passed a law that could lead to TikTok — a short-video social media platform with 1 billion users worldwide — being banned in the country. US authorities claim that the app is credited to the Chinese Communist Party and is therefore a potential vector for foreign interference.
The TikTok owner disputes the claims. Furthermore, the company argues that the law violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has paid increasing attention to how U.S. laws and the Constitution apply in the Internet era. But this case, TikTok v. Garland, represents the most high-profile case to date. It is unclear how the judges will resolve this case, but the ramifications could be profound.
Congress doesn’t agree on much these days. However, there is one thing, one of the most popular social media apps in the United States poses a serious threat to national security.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will begin giving its opinion. In the case that reached them at breakneck speed, the justices will hear oral arguments on a federal law that puts a modern twist on a classic challenge: balancing public protection with civilian protection. Freedoms.
In 2024, the federal government passed a law that could result in TikTok — a short-video social media platform with 1 billion users worldwide — being banned in the United States. TikTok is owned by a company headquartered in Beijing, and US authorities claim that the app is affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party and is therefore a potential vector of foreign interference.
Why did we write this?
Does freedom of expression cover entire media platforms? Critics of a US law that could ban TikTok argue that it ignores one of the core principles of the country’s free speech tradition: trust in the American people.
ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, rejects all of these allegations. Furthermore, the company argues that the law — titled the Protecting Americans from Foreign Controlled Applications Act — violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has paid increasing attention to how U.S. laws and the Constitution apply in the Internet era. But this case, TikTok v. Garland represents the most prominent of these cases to date, experts say. It is unclear how the judges will resolve this case, but the ramifications could be profound.
“It’s a very important case historically in terms of our First Amendment jurisprudence,” says Alex Albin, a lecturer at UCLA School of Law.
“The government is not seeking to ban a specific story, but rather an entire platform,” he adds. “This is a very significant departure from American law.”
How did we get here?
Very quickly.
ByteDance has worked for years to allay government concerns and ensure TikTok is protected in the US from Chinese interference, a multibillion-dollar effort called Project Texas. However, Congress decided last April that the app should be banned.
In December, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the lawsuit filed by ByteDance and a group of TikTok users. The court also placed the case on an accelerated schedule, hearing arguments only three weeks after it was heard.
Fast track is due to certain provisions in the law. The law stipulates that TikTok can continue to operate in the United States as long as ByteDance sells its US operations to a government-approved buyer. The law sets a time limit of 270 days to complete the sale. The company has yet to find a buyer, and a January 19 deadline looms.
Under another provision, the lawsuit went directly to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which last month sided with the government. A panel of three judges detained That the government’s national security interest was compelling enough to justify the law. ByteDance appealed to the Supreme Court.
What are the parties arguing about now?
The case before the Supreme Court focuses squarely on the First Amendment question. The answer to this question will likely depend on the “level of scrutiny” judges use to evaluate the TikTok law.
Laws that could restrict freedom of expression are generally assumed to be subject to strict scrutiny, meaning that the law must be “narrowly tailored” and driven by a “compelling” government interest. In the history of the United States, Only three laws The restriction of freedom of expression has escaped strict scrutiny in the Supreme Court. However, the D.C. Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny to the TikTok law, meaning the law only had to advance an “important” government interest.
The level of scrutiny is particularly important here. ByteDance and some legal experts say the government’s national security concerns over TikTok are questionable at best.
The US government claims the Chinese government could use the app to spread disinformation that could potentially destabilize the country. Washington claims that Beijing could also use the app to access the personal data of millions of Americans. China has committed several Main hacks Of US entities recently, but the US also acknowledges that there is no evidence that the Chinese government has done this with TikTok – yet.
“The specter of Chinese threats cannot obscure the threat posed by China [law] Itself…pose[s] “For all Americans,” ByteDance wrote in its letter Brief To court.
The company added that the law “doesn’t come close to the only three laws this court has subjected” to strict scrutiny. “Congress’s unprecedented attempt to highlight this [TikTok] Totally unconstitutional.”
The government counters that the evidence Congress reviewed in crafting the TikTok law demonstrated the government’s “compelling” interest. But it also argues — and the D.C. Circuit agreed — that the law need not be subject to strict scrutiny because it does not restrict free speech at all.
Nathan Howard – Reuters/File
The government claims that the foreign-owned company does not have First Amendment rights. Likewise, a TikTok ban would not prevent TikTok users from exercising freedom of expression elsewhere online.
“Congress has imposed no restrictions on expression, let alone restrictions based on viewpoint or content,” the government wrote in its letter. Brief.
He added that the law “fits comfortably into a long tradition of regulating foreign ownership of domestic communications channels and other critical infrastructure.”
What are the possible ramifications here?
There is one obvious potential implication: If the Supreme Court upholds the TikTok law, the platform will become unavailable to Americans. ByteDance could find a buyer in the coming days, but it is unclear whether the company wants to sell, according to the British newspaper “Daily Mail”. recently Reports.
This will be historic. The United States government has never blocked an entire means of communication; according to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. In a world where globalization has helped spread foreign ownership of companies, including news organizations, experts say upholding the TikTok law would set a worrying precedent.
Major media entities such as Fox News and the New York Times have foreign owners. Just last week, President Joe Biden blocked a company from Japan, a long-time ally, from buying US Steel because of it It would “weaken” national security.
“We are as likely to feel the effects of this condition as we see [more] Regulations restricting trade [and] “It’s trade that’s in the national security interest,” says Gus Horowitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
Some experts assert that supporting the TikTok law would have relatively minor effects (beyond expelling TikTok from cell phones in the United States).
There are other social media platforms, and the specifics of the TikTok case could allow the court to “make this a China-specific case,” says Jane Bumpauer, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. This would preserve the rest of the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence.
But critics say the law ignores one of the fundamental principles of the US free speech tradition: trust in the American people.
China may use TikTok to spread misinformation and further divide the country. but a lot studies displays Social media algorithms rarely change users’ opinions or beliefs. Instead, algorithms tend to reinforce existing beliefs by directing users to content they already agree with.
Rather than banning enforcement, skeptics say courts should err in favor of trusting their ability to think independently and critically.
“When we’re not sure, we allow people who voluntarily receive information to continue receiving information, even when it’s from a hostile government,” Professor Bambauer says. “This is the gamble that the open society is taking.”