The TikTok ban is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Friday The future of TikTok In the United States and a law that may be effectively ban popular software like next week.
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Enemy Control Act goals It will impose stiff civil penalties on TikTok and app “entities” that carry the service after January 19. One of the issues discussed by the judges was whether the law violated the Constitution’s protection of free speech.
During the more than two-hour argument, the judges repeatedly questioned TikTok’s general counsel about the social media platform’s ties to the People’s Republic of China. And they didn’t believe TikTok’s main argument that the law violated the free speech rights of millions of individual users in the United States.
Questions remain about the president-elect Donald Trumphe is ready to implement the law after taking office one day after its enactment. Trump favors third-party service providers if he decides not to enforce the violations apple and Google will face a dilemma: will they follow the letter of the law or trust the new administration’s assurances that they will not ignore it.
“The consensus appears to be correct that the court will allow the ban to take effect,” Gautam Hans, a law professor at Cornell University, said in a statement.
“It’s unfortunate that so many justices put their trust in this law, which clearly includes freedom of expression on national security grounds,” Hans said.
TikTok’s argument
Noel Francisco, who was the US attorney general in the first term of the newly elected president Donald Trump, opened the hearing as the legal representative of TikTok. He repeated Trump’s wish the court suspended the effective banTo give Trump time to find out political solution to national security concerns about TikTok.
The judges asked Francisco questions about TikTok’s ties to China-based ByteDance, the owner of the social media service, and heard TikTok’s First Amendment argument against the law.
Much of the court’s line of inquiry focused on TikTok’s ownership structure. When Justice Samuel Alito asked Francisco if he would make the same argument if TikTok were directly owned by the Chinese government, the TikTok lawyer said he would not.
But Francisco also insisted that Beijing is not forcing TikTok to make content decisions.
“We strongly oppose any kind of content manipulation by China,” Francisco said. For example, it was noted by court observers that he carefully used the word “resist” rather than “refuse”.
Jeffrey Fisher, special counsel at O’Melveny & Myers, argued on behalf of TikTok content creators challenging the law.
In the interest of national security, “Congress may prohibit Americans from … associating with terrorist organizations,” Fisher said. But “the government can’t just come and say ‘national security’ and it’s over.”
“You have to look into what the national security claim is,” Fisher said.
Government business
So far, most of the arguments in support of the TikTok takedown law have centered around the claim that TikTok actually poses a threat to national security. This was the basis of the argument of US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Americans who use TikTok may believe they are “talking to each other,” Prelogar said. But in reality, “the PRC, a foreign enemy country, is instead exploiting the weakness in the system.”
The judges pressed Prelogar on how TikTok differs from other foreign companies such as Politico and Oxford University Press.
“China is a foreign enemy country that seeks every opportunity to weaken the United States,” he said. “If he has control over (TikTok), it’s hard to predict exactly how he will use it as a tool to harm our interests.”
“But we know it’s going to try,” Prelogar said.
“What we are trying to prevent is not the specific topic, the specific views, but the technical capabilities of a foreign enemy country to use the communication channel,” Prelogar said.
Regarding the possibility that the incoming Trump administration may extend the period before the law takes effect, Prelogar said that the US government has not yet taken a position on this.
“We didn’t put it down because it just wasn’t presented here,” Prelogar said.
Trump’s inauguration will take place on January 20, and the cutoff deadline is January 19.
As for whether President-elect Trump would choose not to implement the law, Prelogar said it “raises a tough question.”
It’s unclear when the court will rule, and China’s ByteDance faces a nationwide ban if it continues to refuse to hand over TikTok to the American company.
What are the potential impacts to users?
TikTok’s roughly 115 million US monthly active users could face a number of scenarios depending on when the Supreme Court rules.
If no word comes before the law goes into effect on January 19 and the ban goes through, users may still be able to install or interact with the app if it’s already downloaded. However, those users likely won’t be able to update or re-download the app after that date, multiple legal experts said.
The thousands of short-form video creators who make money from TikTok through ad revenue, paid partnerships, merchandise, and more will likely have to move their businesses to other platforms like YouTube or Instagram.
“Shutting down TikTok for even one day would be a big deal, not just for the people who create content on TikTok, but for everyone who shares or views content,” he said. helped write the institute’s amicus briefs in the case.
“It sets a really dangerous precedent for how we regulate online speech,” Wang said.
What comes next?
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will issue its decision, but there are some predictions that the court could issue a quick decision in an expedited hearing of the case.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, said the case will have “huge implications” because TikTok’s user base in the US is so large.
“It’s unprecedented for a government to ban speech platforms, especially platforms that are used by large numbers of people,” Chemerinsky said. “Ultimately, it’s a tension between free speech issues on the one hand and national security claims on the other.”
“There are good reasons to have concerns about privacy and data collection,” Cornell’s Hans said.
“However, this law specifically targets one platform, which should cause us all to worry that future government actions may target other speech platforms.”
WATCH: It looks like TikTok may actually be shutting down, says Jim Cramer
English