The future of the TikTok divest-or-ban law is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court following a critical three-hour hearing. This decision comes ahead of an imminent deadline that could significantly impact the social media platform.
During the hearing, the court’s nine justices heard arguments from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators, and the US government regarding the law that mandates its ban unless sold by its parent company, ByteDance. Central to the discussions is whether this law threatens free speech.
Noel Francisco, a legal representative for TikTok, argued that the ban would infringe upon the constitutional rights of approximately 170 million American users.
A spokesperson for platform creators expressed the need for freedom in choosing their publishing platforms.
Conversely, government officials advocated for the law’s enforcement, emphasizing national security concerns associated with TikTok’s ownership.
This law received bipartisan support during its passage, reflecting years of growing apprehension regarding the platform, particularly its popularity among younger demographics.
The legislation mandates that ByteDance either sell TikTok in the US or halt operations by January 19. In court, Justice Department attorney Elizabeth B. Prelogar articulated that ByteDance’s connections to the Chinese government pose a clear national security risk, claiming that Beijing could exploit TikTok to inflict harm on the United States.
Prelogar dismissed a suggested warning for TikTok users as insufficient to mitigate concerns about the app’s ties to China and its implications for national security.
Toward the hearing’s conclusion, Mr. Francisco reiterated that “the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech,” asserting this principle applies to the current law.
The justices, however, continued to probe the underlying national security issues that necessitated the law’s creation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically raised alarms about the data TikTok gathers from users and its potential vulnerabilities, deeming such risks serious for the nation’s future.
The Political Implications
In a notable twist, discussions emerged regarding former President Donald Trump’s calls for the court to delay its ruling until he could seek a “political solution” upon regaining the presidency.
On Friday, TikTok’s attorney warned that the platform could “go dark” without intervention by January 19. Prelogar countered that nothing definitive must occur on that date and that there remains an opportunity for a sale.
She posited that forcing TikTok offline could serve as a wake-up call for ByteDance to seriously contemplate divesting the platform, likening the scenario to a “game of chicken” where the US should not be the first to relent.
The justices will deliberate their ruling, with an announcement anticipated soon. Meanwhile, over a hundred demonstrators braved the elements in Washington DC to support TikTok.
A student from UC San Diego, who had been waiting outside the court since early morning, expressed her belief that TikTok should not be banned, citing its significance as a news source for her generation.
The Congressional legislation does not outright ban the app; however, it would require major tech companies to discontinue offering TikTok and block updates, a scenario many analysts predict could lead to its decline.
The US government categorizes TikTok as a significant threat, arguing that the Chinese government could compel ByteDance to hand over user data or manipulate content to serve its interests.
In response to allegations of foreign influence, TikTok has consistently denied involvement by the Chinese Communist Party and asserts the law infringes on First Amendment rights.
Globally, TikTok faces restrictions on government devices in several countries, including the UK, while India has imposed a complete ban.
A December ruling by a three-judge appeals court upheld the law, stating that China’s history of leveraging private companies justified the measures as essential for countering a substantiated national security threat.
Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford law professor representing the creators challenging the law, argued that ideas alone do not constitute a national security threat under the First Amendment, despite historical ideological conflicts with foreign adversaries.
