US Supreme Court criticizes TikTok’s arguments against impending ban social media news

United States Supreme Court justices have signaled skepticism towards the challenge brought by video-sharing platform TikTok, as it seeks to overturn a law that would force the sale of the app or ban it by January 19. Will give.

Friday’s hearing is the latest in a legal saga that has pitted the US government against TikTok’s parent company ByteDance in a battle over free speech and national security concerns.

The legislation in question was signed in April, announcing that ByteDance would face a deadline to sell its US shares or face sanctions.

The bill had strong bipartisan support, with lawmakers citing fears that China-based ByteDance could collect user data and transmit it to the Chinese government. Outgoing US President Joe Biden eventually signed it into law.

But ByteDance and TikTok users have challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing that banning the app would limit their free speech rights.

During Friday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court was influenced by the government’s position that the app enables China’s government to spy on Americans and conduct covert influence operations.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also raised the possibility of issuing an administrative stay, which would temporarily halt the legislation while the court decides how to proceed.

The Supreme Court has considered this matter at a time when trade tensions continue between the world’s two largest economies, America and China.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to begin his second term a day after the ban took effect, had promised to “save” the platform during his presidential campaign.

This is a contrast from his first term in office, when he unsuccessfully tried to ban TikTok.

In December, Trump called on the Supreme Court to halt implementation of the law to give his administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the issues in the case.”

Noel Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, stressed in court that the law risks shutting down one of the most popular platforms in the US.

“This act must not continue,” Francisco said. He rejected fears that “Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation” and that the decision “leaves the First Amendment up to the people”.

Francisco asked the judges to grant, at a minimum, a temporary stay on the legislation, “which will allow you to carefully consider this important issue and, for the reasons stated by the President-elect, will potentially make the case moot.” .

‘Make TikTok a weapon’ to harm America

TikTok has about 170 million American users, which is almost half the US population.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger, arguing for the Biden administration, said Chinese control over TikTok poses a serious threat to US national security.

He pointed out that the app could collect massive amounts of data from users and their contacts, giving China a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and spying.

Then China “can weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.

Preloger said the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from taking steps to protect Americans and their data.

During Friday’s hearing, several judges appeared to accept those arguments. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pressured TikTok’s lawyers over Chinese ownership of the company.

“Should we ignore the fact that the ultimate parents are, in fact, subject to intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked.

“It seems to me that you are ignoring Congress’s major concern here – which was Chinese manipulation of the material and the acquisition and harvesting of the material.”

Roberts sidestepped free speech arguments, saying, “Congress doesn’t care what’s on TikTok.”

Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan also suggested that April’s TikTok law is “targeted solely at this foreign corporation that has no First Amendment rights.”

TikTok, ByteDance and app users had appealed a lower court ruling, which upheld the law and rejected their argument that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections under the First Amendment.