Washington On Friday, it seemed likely that the Supreme Court will maintain a legislation that would essentially outlaw the social networking app TikTok in the US.
At least a preliminary ruling is expected in the coming days, if not hours, after the nine justices on the conservative-majority court heard oral arguments from attorneys for TikTok, some of its users, and the Biden administration.
Even while the judges didn’t seem to be persuaded by TikTok’s arguments regarding free speech, there is still some doubt about the court’s decision in this case, particularly since President-elect Donald Trump will take office one day after the law’s effective date of January 19. Even if the court decides against TikTok, it still has the power to temporarily halt the law.
In order to pursue a political settlement of the conflict when he takes office, Trump filed an unprecedented brief with the Supreme Court, requesting that the justices temporarily stop the statute.
The law, which was passed with widespread bipartisan support, mandates that ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, which is based in China, sell out its stake in the business. The platform that millions of Americans use would “go dark,” according to the company’s attorney, Noel Francisco, if no sale occurs.
TikTok and a few of its users filed a lawsuit to have the measure blocked, claiming it infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Because of worries that the Chinese government would have control over the platform, the court is evaluating those arguments against the government’s justification of the statute on the basis of national security.
The justices seemed willing to at least accept some of the government’s national security arguments regarding concerns about the collection of data from American users, even though they voiced some concerns about the law bringing up free speech issues, particularly in relation to the platform’s content moderation policies.
The government’s data gathering justifications, according to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, were “very strong,” but the worries about the Chinese government controlling content “raise much more challenging questions.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also appeared hesitant to cast doubt on Congress, pointing to its conclusions that ByteDance must cooperate with intelligence collection under Chinese law.
“So are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” questioned the man.
Roberts addressed the issue of free speech by stating that Congress is unconcerned with what is posted on TikTok. The law does not require TikTok to shut down. He went on to say, “They’re saying China has to stop controlling TikTok.”
The judges also asked whether TikTok’s free expression rights are in question because the statute targets its foreign owner, who might not be able to assert First Amendment rights.
According to Justice Elena Kagan, “TikTok is the only company that has First Amendment rights.” “And I guess my question is, how are those First Amendment rights really being implicated here?”
Regardless of how possible or how long the forced divestiture takes, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether TikTok’s First Amendment rights are violated because the company could theoretically continue to operate using technology that is not under ByteDance’s control.
Sotomayor told Francisco, “Look, if the government is doing something specifically for the purpose of changing the content that people see, that has to be subject to strict scrutiny.” That was your stronger argument, or at least the one that most intrigued me. In contrast to ByteDance, I don’t think that will have an impact on TikTok.
Francisco argued that the statute should be overturned, stating that it is a largely unprecedented policy that is not supported by any possible harm to national security.
“I’m not aware of any time in American history where the Congress has tried to shut down a major speech platform,” he stated.
Because creators have the ability to choose their publisher, the law, according to Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney for TikTok users, impedes his clients’ First Amendment expression rights.
According to Fisher, his client and other “ordinary American citizens” may create sizable platforms and make their voices known thanks to TikTok’s distinctive algorithmic architecture. According to Fisher, other social media sites have not been able to replicate the atmosphere that TikTok provides, which would disadvantage TikTok producers in the event that the program stopped working.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar gave the justices information about TikTok gathering user data and using it to track the whereabouts of Forbes journalists in an attempt to support the government’s national security arguments for the law. She also stated that ByteDance might be forced to provide China’s government with that information.
In 2018, Meta admitted to granting Chinese developers access to user data.
Additionally, Prelogar questioned TikTok’s announcement that it would go down, speculating that the corporation might be playing “a game of chicken” as the deadline draws near. The platform may reopen if ByteDance sells off its stake in TikTok once the regulation takes effect, she continued.
The political history of the case is complex and tense.
Despite the fact that the ban was signed into law by President Joe Biden and passed by Congress with bipartisan support, Trump has changed his mind on the matter. He promised to outlaw TikTok during his first term in office, but he later declared his support for the app during the election campaign, pointing to his own popularity on the app. He recently met the CEO of the company.
The statute contains a clause that permits the president to provide a one-time extension of ninety days in the event that he finds a way to divest and that there has been substantial progress in carrying it out. No indications have been made to the public that such a sale is likely. A group led by billionaire Frank McCourt said on Thursday that it was making an offer.
Despite concluding that the law did implicate the First Amendment and required a thorough analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed it.
An algorithm on TikTok, which was introduced in the United States in 2018 and currently has 170 million members, shows consumers streams of short-form video content that change according to their interests.