TikTok says US ban would have ‘staggering’ impact on free speech

TikTok, a widely used social media platform in the United States, is currently facing a significant legal challenge regarding a proposed law that could lead to its ban unless it is sold by its parent company, ByteDance. In a recent court hearing, TikTok's legal team argued that this law would have a 'staggering' effect on the free speech rights of its 170 million users in the US. The law was introduced due to concerns that the personal data of American users could be misused by the Chinese government. Despite these concerns, TikTok and ByteDance have consistently denied any connections to the Chinese authorities. The companies filed a lawsuit in early May to prevent the law from being enacted, claiming it is unconstitutional and effectively silences the voices of its users. During the court proceedings, a panel of three judges in Washington DC listened to TikTok's arguments. Andrew Pincus, the lawyer representing TikTok and ByteDance, emphasized that the law imposes an unreasonable restriction on speech based on uncertain future risks. He clarified that TikTok is owned by ByteDance Limited, a company based in the Cayman Islands, and not directly by China. However, Judge Sri Srinivasan raised concerns about the company's ties to Chinese control, suggesting that the ownership structure does not eliminate the potential for foreign influence. Pincus countered that the US government has not provided evidence of any wrongdoing by TikTok, arguing that the law punishes the company for hypothetical issues that may arise in the future. The judges challenged Pincus's assertion that the law represents an unprecedented ban on a single entity, with Judge Ginsberg noting that the law targets a broader group of companies controlled by foreign adversaries, rather than TikTok alone. The implications of this law extend beyond TikTok itself, as Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer representing content creators, argued that it could infringe upon their constitutional rights to collaborate with the platform of their choice. Outside the courthouse, TikTok creator Tiffany Cianci was live streaming to her followers, sharing updates about the hearing. She reported that 65,000 viewers tuned in to watch, indicating a strong public interest in the case. Cianci expressed her belief that the American public is concerned about the potential loss of TikTok, stating, 'The American people care about this issue. ' She also criticized the use of TikTok by politicians in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, calling it 'hypocritical' and questioning the validity of the security concerns surrounding the app. In response to TikTok's defense, Department of Justice lawyer Daniel Tenny argued that the technology behind TikTok is developed and maintained by ByteDance, not by TikTok's US operations. He stated, 'It is not expression by Americans in America - it is expression by Chinese engineers in China. ' Fisher countered that the content shared on TikTok represents American speech, albeit curated by a foreign company. The debate over data privacy and national security has intensified, with officials expressing fears that TikTok could be exploited by the Chinese government to surveil American citizens. Advocates for free speech rights, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, warn that upholding the divest-or-ban law could set a dangerous precedent for authoritarian regimes worldwide. Xiangnong Wang, a staff attorney at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, cautioned that repressive governments might use this law to justify their own restrictions on citizens' access to information and media from abroad. The stakes are high for TikTok, and experts believe that the law was crafted to withstand legal challenges. James Lewis, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that the case against TikTok is robust, with the key issue being whether the court will accept that requiring divestiture does not infringe upon free speech. He added that courts typically defer to the president on matters of national security. Regardless of the court's ruling, many experts anticipate that the case could extend for months, if not longer. Gautam Hans, a clinical law professor, emphasized the government's authority to legislate on national security matters, stating, 'They cannot have that limited by the courts. ' The situation is critical for TikTok, as the company asserts that it cannot separate its US operations and would have no choice but to shut down if the law is enforced. Mike Proulx, a research director at Forrester, highlighted the 'high stakes' nature of the case, suggesting that it may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the United States.