Published on

TikTok hearing LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on platform’s fate

Introduction

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States held a hearing on a pivotal case regarding TikTok's future, known as case number 24656, featuring TikTok versus Garland. The court convened to deliberate on the implications of the new law, known as the ACT, which aims to prevent foreign ownership and influence over social media platforms. This law could force TikTok, a subsidiary of the Chinese company ByteDance, to cease operations unless ByteDance executes a qualified divestiture.

Key Arguments Presented:

The case was presented by Attorney Mr. Francisco, representing TikTok. He asserted three primary arguments supporting his claim that the ACT violates the First Amendment rights of TikTok and its users:

  1. Regulation of Speech: Francisco argued that TikTok is a United States company that operates on a platform providing user-generated content. The ACT imposes a burden upon TikTok's ability to speak by mandating them to go dark unless ByteDance divests its ownership, which he contended is a clear infringement on free speech.

  2. Content-Based Regulation: He further claimed that the ACT is inherently content-based, as it targets only platforms with user-generated content and treats TikTok more harshly due to fears surrounding potential Chinese influence. This selective targeting, he argued, raises significant First Amendment concerns.

  3. Insufficient Scrutiny: Finally, he contended that the ACT cannot withstand any form of scrutiny, as the government does not have a legitimate interest in preventing foreign propaganda and has not considered less restrictive alternatives that could address data privacy without infringing on TikTok's speech.

Francisco also highlighted that TikTok's algorithm serves as a significant component of its speech, and the requirement for ByteDance to divest suppresses this algorithm. He pointed out hypotheticals involving other major media entities facing similar scrutiny but ultimately concluded that the essence of this argument is about the right to free speech.

Government’s Position:

On behalf of the government, General Preager argued that the PRC's control over TikTok presents a distinct threat to national security. He posited that the law specifically targets foreign adversary control over a critical media platform capable of influencing public opinion and gathering sensitive user data.

The government asserted that TikTok collects enormous amounts of personal data from its users and could potentially be manipulated by the PRC to weaken U.S. interests, fueling misinformation or chaos. Preager emphasized that the law's aim is to eliminate any chance of covert influence operations and argued that it does not impose restrictions on the speech of TikTok's users or the content itself, as the platform could continue to operate post-divestiture.

Discussion Points:

Throughout the session, Justices discussed several key issues including the implications of foreign control, the difference between covert and overt content manipulation, and the legitimacy of Congress’s motivations in enacting the ACT. The court acknowledged the complexity of the First Amendment rights in regards to a foreign entity like ByteDance.

As the arguments unfolded, counsel for TikTok suggested issuing a preliminary injunction could allow for careful consideration of the issues raised without immediately shutting down the platform, a notion that was met with varied responses from the justices.

With many specifics highlighted in the arguments, this case continues to raise pertinent questions regarding speech, foreign influence, and data security in the modern digital landscape as the Supreme Court ponders its next steps.

Keyword

  • TikTok
  • Supreme Court
  • ACT
  • ByteDance
  • First Amendment
  • Foreign ownership
  • Data privacy
  • Speech regulation
  • National security

FAQ

1. What is the ACT? The ACT is a law that seeks to prevent foreign ownership and influence over social media platforms, specifically targeting TikTok’s operations under the ownership of ByteDance.

2. What are the main arguments from TikTok's side? TikTok argues that the ACT infringes upon their First Amendment rights by forcing them to cease operations unless ByteDance divests. They also claim the ACT is content-based and that the government cannot satisfy any level of scrutiny.

3. How does the government defend the ACT? The government defends the ACT by stating that TikTok poses a national security threat due to the PRC's potential to manipulate content and gather sensitive user data.

4. Could TikTok continue to operate after a possible divestiture? Yes, TikTok could continue to operate using the same algorithm and content after a divestiture, as the ACT does not directly restrict the content of the platform.

5. Is there a potential for an administrative stay or preliminary injunction? Yes, there is a possibility for the court to issue an administrative stay or a preliminary injunction allowing for further consideration of the case without an immediate shutdown of TikTok.

Read More