Supreme Court Eyes TikTok Ban Amid Rising Security Worries

The Supreme Court seems ready to support a statute that banishes TikTok in the US due to national security worries unless its parent company, based in China, divests the platform before the January 19 deadline.

Lawyers on behalf of TikTok and content creators argued that the prohibition would infringe upon the free speech rights of over 170 million users in the US.

The government of the US contended that absent a sale, TikTok might be exploited by China for espionage and political manipulation.

A ruling by the Supreme Court is anticipated within a few days. President-elect Donald Trump, returning to the White House shortly, now opposes the restriction.

According to the law, TikTok’s parent firm, ByteDance, must either sell the app in the US or halt operations by January 19. The company has indicated it will not divest the short-form video platform.

The legislature was passed with backing from both Democratic and Republican factions – a moment that epitomized years of unease regarding the extremely popular app, noted for its viral content and appeal to younger audiences.

The statute does not prohibit the app’s usage, but would obligate tech giants like Apple and Google to cease its availability and limit updates, which analysts speculate would ultimately lead to its demise.

TikTok has consistently rejected any possible influence from the Chinese Communist Party and stated that the law infringes on the First Amendment free speech rights of its users.

Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general representing the platform, emphasized that restricting the most popular speech platform for Americans could pave the way for a perilous type of censorship.

He contended that “the government cannot restrain speech to shield us from speech”.

“That is exactly what this law does from start to finish.”

An advocate for platform creators contended they should be allowed to use the publisher of their preference.

Jeffrey L Fisher, a law professor at Stanford University representing creators who have litigated regarding the law, informed the court on Friday that historically, the nation has encountered “ideological campaigns from foreign adversaries”.

However, he asserted that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not constitute a national security threat.

Elizabeth B Prelogar, a lawyer for the justice department, told the court that ByteDance’s connections to the Chinese government posed a national security threat.

She informed the court that Beijing “could weaponize TikTok at any moment to do harm to the United States”.

Throughout nearly three hours of discussions, the nine justices repeatedly returned to the national security issues that prompted the law initially, while also examining free speech concerns.

“Are we meant to overlook the fact that the ultimate parent is, indeed, obligated to conduct intelligence operations for the Chinese government?” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts inquired of TikTok attorney Mr. Francisco.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh scrutinized the worries the US government has raised concerning the data that the app collects regarding its users and the possible use of that data.

The threats appear to be a “huge concern for the future of the nation,” he remarked.

In December, US President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to postpone its ruling until he assumes the presidency again, allowing him to pursue a “political resolution” for the issues involved.

TikTok’s attorney asserted before the court on Friday that, in his view, the platform would “go dark” on January 19 if no action is taken.

Ms. Prelogar, advocating for the US justice department, stated that “nothing permanent” needed to occur on that date and there remains time for a divestment.

Forcing the app to go dark could provide the “jolt” ByteDance requires to genuinely contemplate a sale, she remarked.

“It will fundamentally alter the landscape regarding what ByteDance may consider,” she explained, likening the scenario to a “game of chicken” where the US should not “yield first”.

Following the hearing, legal experts projected that the justices of the Supreme Court seemed to be influenced by the government’s apprehensions.

“Historically, the Supreme Court has exhibited willingness to defer when national security is involved,” stated law professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond.

“I anticipate that the majority of justices will side with the government,” he added.

Jacob Hubert, an attorney and president of the Liberty Justice Center – which represents BASED Politics, an internet content creator – mentioned that it remains challenging.to foresee how the court might decide.

However, he asserts that the prohibition would infringe upon the free speech rights of countless Americans – a claim he feels was convincingly presented by TikTok’s attorneys.

“It’s not about the rights of China or the rights of the Communist Party,” he remarked. “It concerns the rights of Americans who utilize TikTok mainly to communicate with other Americans.”

Over a hundred individuals endured frigid weather in Washington DC to witness the hearing in person.

Chloe Joy Sexton – one of the TikTok creators mentioned in the lawsuit – expressed that the platform provided numerous creators with “financial freedom,” including many mothers.

“A TikTok prohibition would put these women, myself included, in genuine financial peril,” she informed journalists. “It would ruin both my enterprise and the community that holds great significance to me.”

Danielle Ballesteros, a pupil at UC San Diego, stated she had been waiting outside the courthouse since 06:30 local time.

“I believe TikTok shouldn’t be banned,” she told BBC News.

While admitting to indulging in it “probably too much,” she mentioned that she perceives the application as a significant news outlet for her generation.

TikTok is already prohibited on government devices in several nations, including the UK. It is facing more comprehensive bans in certain countries, such as India.

Last December, a decision by a three-judge appeals court upheld the legislation, emphasizing China’s history of operating through private firms and asserting that the policy was warranted as “part of a larger initiative to counter a well-established national security risk posed” by the nation.