Teacher
Professional
- Messages
- 2,670
- Reaction score
- 775
- Points
- 113
The Supreme Court may be the last resort in a dispute over the fate of the app.
Amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China, popular video-sharing app TikTok found itself at the center of a legislative debate. The bill recently passed by the House of Representatives gives TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance a tough choice: sell the American segment of the platform or face a complete ban on its activities in the United States. However, most likely, TikTok will resort to the third option - to sue the government.
According to the proposed law, ByteDance will have to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese owner within six months, otherwise the application's activity in the United States will be discontinued. China has already expressed its opposition to the forced sale, making it likely that the fight over TikTok's fate will move to the courtrooms.
The main issue that the judges will have to decide is the need to compare the national security interests that underlie the ban with the rights to free speech of TikTok and its users.
So far, Congress has not taken such drastic measures against the Internet platforms used by millions of Americans to communicate. In the past, judges have found that banning TikTok would violate users ' constitutional rights to freedom of expression when posting and consuming content.
To justify restrictions on free speech, the government will probably have to prove that less stringent measures will be ineffective in curbing Chinese influence and protecting Americans ' data. According to David Green of the non-profit organization Electronic Frontier Foundation, much will depend on the arguments of the authorities in support of the law.
The question of the constitutionality of a potential TikTok ban may get further development in the Supreme Court. In 1965, the highest court recognized the right of citizens to receive information, even if it is foreign propaganda. In 1986, the court allowed businesses suspected of illegal activities to close, rejecting arguments about violating freedom of expression.
As the bill is considered in the Senate, additional legal issues may arise. Some lawmakers are concerned that a law specifically targeting TikTok may be unconstitutional, as the courts may see it as an attempt to punish the company without due process of law.
Amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China, popular video-sharing app TikTok found itself at the center of a legislative debate. The bill recently passed by the House of Representatives gives TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance a tough choice: sell the American segment of the platform or face a complete ban on its activities in the United States. However, most likely, TikTok will resort to the third option - to sue the government.
According to the proposed law, ByteDance will have to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese owner within six months, otherwise the application's activity in the United States will be discontinued. China has already expressed its opposition to the forced sale, making it likely that the fight over TikTok's fate will move to the courtrooms.
The main issue that the judges will have to decide is the need to compare the national security interests that underlie the ban with the rights to free speech of TikTok and its users.
So far, Congress has not taken such drastic measures against the Internet platforms used by millions of Americans to communicate. In the past, judges have found that banning TikTok would violate users ' constitutional rights to freedom of expression when posting and consuming content.
To justify restrictions on free speech, the government will probably have to prove that less stringent measures will be ineffective in curbing Chinese influence and protecting Americans ' data. According to David Green of the non-profit organization Electronic Frontier Foundation, much will depend on the arguments of the authorities in support of the law.
The question of the constitutionality of a potential TikTok ban may get further development in the Supreme Court. In 1965, the highest court recognized the right of citizens to receive information, even if it is foreign propaganda. In 1986, the court allowed businesses suspected of illegal activities to close, rejecting arguments about violating freedom of expression.
As the bill is considered in the Senate, additional legal issues may arise. Some lawmakers are concerned that a law specifically targeting TikTok may be unconstitutional, as the courts may see it as an attempt to punish the company without due process of law.
