Washington, DC, January 11:
A majority of the judges on the US Supreme Court on Friday seemed inclined to uphold a federal law that would impose a ban on the video-sharing app TikTok in the US after January 19 if the Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance divests from the platform, ABC News reported.
TikTok vs Garland is the legal case that pits the social media platform against all three branches of the US government, which have a similar view that the app poses a serious risk to national security. During arguments, concerns regarding intelligence threats posed by China and potential future weaponization of the app appeared to override concerns about potential restrictions on free speech rights. During the hearing, "Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent of TikTok is doing intelligence work?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the company's attorney, Noel Francisco, according to the ABC News report.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that concerns regarding foreign data collection on Americans were "very strong" and that there are legitimate fears the data could be used to "turn spies or blackmail people" in the future. Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical of the argument that law was silencing people of the US. Barrett said, "The law doesn't say 'shut down' [TikTok]," Barrett said. "It says ByteDance must divest. If it did that we wouldn't be here."
Justice Samuel Alito said that the ban's consequences might not be drastic or necessarily long-lived. Alito stated, "If TikTok went dark," and asked, "is there reason to doubt some other media company won't jump in?" Justice Elena Kagan stated that constitutional protections for free speech were not applicable overseas. She said, "The law is only targeted at this foreign corporation that doesn't have First Amendment rights."
Lawyers who represented company and a group of TikTok creators said that the government could have created a law less restrictive on the speech of users by outlawing retention or transfer of data to a foreign power, ABC News reported. Francisco said, "We're not disputing the risks," and added, "we're disputing the means" the government took to stop it. Jeffrey Fisher, the attorney for the creators, said that the law was against history and tradition and the right to work with foreign speakers.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was the most sympathetic on the bench to the free speech arguments presented by the lawyers representing the company, suggesting that the law is "paternalistic" and "the best remedy for problematic speech is counter-speech." Francisco created a stark picture of what happens if the ban takes effect. US administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger said that scenario could bring a "jolt" to ByteDance to finally divest, although the company stresses divestiture is impossible considering the global nature of the app.
Prelogar admitted that "millions of Americans enjoy expressing themselves" on the app. However, she stressed that "the important thing to recognize is that the act leaves all of that speech unrestricted once TikTok is freed from foreign adversary control," as per the ABC News report.
Meanwhile, US President-elect Donald Trump, who had previously signed an executive order to impose a ban on the app has recently said that he wants to "save" it. The justices discussed the possibility of giving Trump administration some time to try one last time to work out a deal. Attorneys for two sides agreed that the Supreme Court could issue an immediate, temporary administrative stay of the ban -- buying time for them to work on making a careful opinion while also giving Trump administration a chance to work out a deal. According to legal analysts, its likely the Supreme Court will weigh in within the next week, ABC News reported.
In April last year, the US Congress passed the law with large bipartisan majorities to target foreign adversary-owned platforms that gathered data on individual Americans and shared propaganda or disinformation. US President Joe Biden signed it and lower federal courts have upheld it.
ByteDance, which owns TikTok and is headquartered in China, has claimed no malign activity in the US and has stressed the law breaches free speech rights of the 170 million Americans who it said use the app every month. If the ban is implemented, it would become unlawful for app stores run by US companies like Apple and Google to offer TikTok downloads or updates with new features or technical fixes. Over a dozen countries, including India, Canada, Australia, and Taiwan, have already blocked or restricted TikTok. Earlier in 2023, the Biden administration banned the use of TikTok on any federal devices.
Source: ANI
