TikTok is set to challenge a new U.S. federal law on Monday. This law demands that the app’s Chinese ownership either sell their stake or face a ban in the United States. TikTok argues that this law violates the U.S. Constitution.
Political Context
The debate over TikTok has become a major political issue. Former President Donald Trump opposes the proposed ban, while President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris support it. Biden signed the law requiring TikTok to divest its Chinese ownership by January, or the app will be banned in the U.S.
TikTok’s Stance
ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, has no plans to sell the app. Instead, it is focusing on a legal challenge based on U.S. free speech protections. If the court enforces the law, TikTok could be forced to shut down by January 19, 2025, silencing its millions of users.
Potential Consequences
A ban on TikTok might lead to severe reactions from China and increase U.S.-China tensions. The case will be heard by a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who will focus on whether the law infringes on free speech.
Legal Arguments
TikTok argues that the law undermines free expression. The company states that even if a sale were possible, it would reduce the app’s impact and technological innovation. The company claims that the Constitution supports its position and seeks a favorable ruling for its 170 million U.S. users.
Government Response
The U.S. government argues that the law addresses national security concerns, not free speech. The Department of Justice contends that TikTok’s reach in the U.S. presents a significant national security threat due to potential Chinese government influence on data and content.
Trump’s Role and Electoral Impact
Under Trump, previous attempts to ban TikTok were blocked by a federal judge due to free speech concerns. Trump has since changed his position and urged voters to support him to save TikTok in the U.S.
The Biden administration’s new law aims to overcome previous legal challenges. However, experts believe it will be challenging for the Supreme Court to prioritize national security over First Amendment protections. Professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond Law School noted that national security arguments are often sealed, complicating their assessment. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has been cautious about allowing national security concerns to override free speech, especially regarding the internet.
