tiktok bytedance

tiktok-owner-has-strong-first-amendment-case-against-us-ban,-professors-say

TikTok owner has strong First Amendment case against US ban, professors say

Illustration of the United States flag and a phone with a cracked screen running the TikTok app

Getty Images | NurPhoto

TikTok owner ByteDance is preparing to sue the US government now that President Biden has signed into law a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if its Chinese owner doesn’t sell the company within 270 days. While it’s impossible to predict the outcome with certainty, law professors speaking to Ars believe that ByteDance will have a strong First Amendment case in its lawsuit against the US.

One reason for this belief is that just a few months ago, a US District Court judge blocked a Montana state law that attempted to ban TikTok. In October 2020, another federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked a Trump administration order that would have banned TikTok from operating inside the US. TikTok also won a preliminary injunction against Trump in US District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2020.

“Courts have said that a TikTok ban is a First Amendment problem,” Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who writes frequent analysis of legal cases involving technology, told Ars this week. “And Congress didn’t really try to navigate away from that. They just went ahead and disregarded the court rulings to date.”

The fact that previous attempts to ban TikTok have failed is “pretty good evidence that the government has an uphill battle justifying the ban,” Goldman said.

TikTok users engage in protected speech

The Montana law “bans TikTok outright and, in doing so, it limits constitutionally protected First Amendment speech,” US District Judge Donald Molloy wrote in November 2023 when he granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the state law.

“The Montana court concluded that the First Amendment challenge would be likely to succeed. This will give TikTok some hope that other courts will follow suit with respect to a national order,” Georgetown Law Professor Anupam Chander told Ars.

Molloy’s ruling said that without TikTok, “User Plaintiffs are deprived of communicating by their preferred means of speech, and thus First Amendment scrutiny is appropriate.” TikTok’s speech interests must be considered “because the application’s decisions related to how it selects, curates, and arranges content are also protected by the First Amendment,” the ruling said.

Banning apps that let people talk to each other “is categorically impermissible,” Goldman said. While the Chinese government engaging in propaganda is a problem, “we need to address that as a government propaganda problem, and not just limited to China,” he said. In Goldman’s view, a broader approach should also be used to stop governments from siphoning user data.

TikTok and opponents of bans haven’t won every case. A federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of Texas Governor Greg Abbott in December 2023. But that ruling only concerned a ban on state employees using TikTok on government-issued devices rather than a law that potentially affects all users of TikTok.

Weighing national security vs. First Amendment

US lawmakers have alleged that the Chinese Communist Party can weaponize TikTok to manipulate public opinion and access user data. But Chander was skeptical of whether the US government could convincingly justify its new law in court on national security grounds.

“Thus far, the government has refused to make public its evidence of a national security threat,” he told Ars. “TikTok put in an elaborate set of controls to insulate the app from malign foreign influence, and the government hasn’t shown why those controls are insufficient.”

The ruling against Trump by a federal judge in Pennsylvania noted that “the Government’s own descriptions of the national security threat posed by the TikTok app are phrased in the hypothetical.”

Chander stressed that the outcome of ByteDance’s planned case against the US is difficult to predict, however. “I would vote against the law if I were a judge, but it’s unclear how judges will weigh the alleged national security risks against the real free expression incursions,” he said.

Montana case may be “bellwether”

There are at least three types of potential plaintiffs that could lodge constitutional challenges to a TikTok ban, Goldman said. There’s TikTok itself, the users of TikTok who would no longer be able to post on the platform, and app stores that would be ordered not to carry the TikTok app.

Montana was sued by TikTok and users. Lead plaintiff Samantha Alario runs a local swimwear business and uses TikTok to market her products.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen appealed the ruling against his state to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Montana case could make it to the Supreme Court before there is any resolution on the enforceability of the US law, Goldman said.

“It’s possible that the Montana ban is actually going to be the bellwether that’s going to set the template for the constitutional review of the Congressional action,” Goldman said.

TikTok owner has strong First Amendment case against US ban, professors say Read More »

us-lawmakers-vote-50-0-to-force-sale-of-tiktok-despite-angry-calls-from-users

US lawmakers vote 50-0 to force sale of TikTok despite angry calls from users

Divest or get out —

Lawmaker: TikTok must “sever relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.”

A large TikTok ad at a subway station.

Getty Images | Bloomberg

The House Commerce Committee today voted 50-0 to approve a bill that would force TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the company or lose access to the US market.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act “addresses the immediate national security risks posed by TikTok and establishes a framework for the Executive Branch to protect Americans from future foreign adversary controlled applications,” a committee memo said. “If an application is determined to be operated by a company controlled by a foreign adversary—like ByteDance, Ltd., which is controlled by the People’s Republic of China—the application must be divested from foreign adversary control within 180 days.”

If the bill passes in the House and Senate and is signed into law by President Biden, TikTok would eventually be dropped from app stores in the US if its owner doesn’t sell. It also would lose access to US-based web-hosting services.

“If the application is not divested, entities in the United States would be prohibited from distributing the application through an application marketplace or store and providing web hosting services,” the committee memo said.

Chair: “CCP weaponizes applications it controls”

The bill was introduced on Tuesday and had 20 sponsors split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. TikTok urged its users to protest the bill, sending a notification that said, “Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok… Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO.”

Many users called lawmakers’ offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. “It’s so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They’re teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can’t take it away,” one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.

House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said that TikTok enlisting users to call lawmakers showed “in real time how the Chinese Communist Party can weaponize platforms like TikTok to manipulate the American people.”

“This is just a small taste of how the CCP weaponizes applications it controls to manipulate tens of millions of people to further their agenda. These applications present a clear national security threat to the United States and necessitate the decisive action we will take today,” she said before the vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the TikTok bill, saying it “would violate the First Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who use the app to communicate and express themselves daily.”

Bill sponsor: “It’s not a ban”

Bill sponsor Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) expressed anger at TikTok for telling its users that the bill would ban the app completely, pointing out that the bill would only ban the app if it isn’t sold.

“If you actually read the bill, it’s not a ban. It’s a divestiture,” Gallagher said, according to Politico. Gallagher also said his bill puts the decision “squarely in the hands of TikTok to sever their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.”

TikTok issued a statement calling the bill “an outright ban of TikTok, no matter how much the authors try to disguise it.” The House Commerce Committee responded to TikTok’s claim, calling it “yet another lie.”

While the bill text could potentially wrap in other apps in the future, it specifically lists the ByteDance-owned TikTok as a “foreign adversary controlled application.”

“It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application,” the bill says. An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale “would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary.”

US lawmakers vote 50-0 to force sale of TikTok despite angry calls from users Read More »