Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
US Supreme Court defended the law may result in Friday Ban on TikTok this Sunday in the US.
“There is no doubt that for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a different and broader opportunity for expression, communication, and a source of community,” the court’s unanimous opinion said. “But Congress determined that the waiver was necessary to address well-supported national security concerns about TikTok’s data collection practices and ties to a foreign adversary.”
For more than five years, US government officials have sought to ban or compel the sale of TikTok, accusing the Chinese-owned company of sharing American user data with the Chinese government and flooding its feeds with pro-Chinese propaganda. Agencies like Congress and the FBI haven’t released much information to the public that backs up these claims, but they have resorted to various methods to ban TikTok.
In response to the decision, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew posted a video on his platform thanked the incoming president Donald Trump for supporting the application. “We are grateful and honored to have the support of a president who truly understands our platform,” said Chew, “someone who uses TikTok to connect with the world and express his ideas and perspective, generating over 60 billion views on his content in the process.”
Chew did not comment on whether TikTok would be officially shut down on Sunday, but said: “Rest assured, we will do our best to ensure that our platform flourishes as a source of endless creativity and discovery, as well as inspiration and your online home.” joy for years to come.”
In 2020, former President Donald Trump first tried On TikTok through a failed execution command. Finally, President Joe Biden signed a bill on April 24, 2024 requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to an American owner by January 19 or face removal from US app stores. TikTok and a group of creators rushed to block the ban, quickly filing a lawsuit against the Justice Department, arguing that the Act to Protect Americans from Controlled Applications by Foreign Enemies violated their First Amendment rights.
In oral arguments Friday, TikTok attorney Noel Francisco and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents the creators, tried to drive that argument home. For the government, lead attorney Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law does not infringe on the defendants’ free speech rights and instead separates the program from ByteDance and Chinese influence.
“There is no doubt that the means Congress and the President have chosen here are dramatic,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion. “I don’t know if this law will achieve its goals. A determined foreign adversary could replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge.”
In its opinion, the court cast doubt on TikTok’s central argument that the law violates the company’s free speech rights, writing that “the provisions at issue are content neutral.” The judges wrote that the law does not regulate the speech of TikTok or its creators, but instead targets the app and ByteDance’s corporate structure.
