TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court
A federal appeals court upheld a law mandating ByteDance to divest TikTok by January 2025, citing national security concerns. TikTok plans to appeal, arguing the ruling infringes on free speech rights.
Read original article
A federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, to divest the app or face a ban in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., dismissed TikTok's claims that the law is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment rights of its 170 million American users. The court cited national security concerns regarding TikTok's alleged ties to the Chinese government as justification for the ruling. If ByteDance does not sell TikTok by January 19, 2025, app stores and internet service providers will be mandated to cease support for the app, effectively banning it. TikTok plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the ban infringes on free speech rights. Critics, including the ACLU, have condemned the ruling, asserting it sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship. The law was signed by President Biden in April, following bipartisan concerns in Congress about TikTok's potential use as a surveillance tool by the Chinese Communist Party. The court's decision reflects a broader effort to address perceived national security threats from foreign adversaries.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban.
- TikTok plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The court cited national security concerns related to TikTok's ties to the Chinese government.
- Critics argue the ruling violates First Amendment rights and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.
- The law was enacted following bipartisan concerns in Congress about TikTok's potential misuse.
Related
TikTok confirms it offered US Government a 'kill switch'
TikTok offered a "kill switch" to the US government amid data protection concerns. Legal disputes continue as ByteDance faces pressure to sell TikTok's US assets by January to avoid a ban.
TikTok confirms it offered US Government a 'kill switch'
TikTok offered a "kill switch" to the US government amid data security concerns. Legal battles persist over potential divestment from ByteDance. Reports suggest data sharing between TikTok and ByteDance.
TikTok collected US user views on issues like abortion and gun control
The U.S. Justice Department accuses TikTok of collecting sensitive data and facilitating communication with ByteDance in China, raising national security concerns. TikTok contests the allegations and potential ban.
The TikTok Case Will Be Determined by What's Behind the Government's Black Lines
The U.S. government defends a potential TikTok ban citing national security risks from ByteDance, while TikTok challenges the evidence's credibility, raising First Amendment concerns and proposing a special master for transparency.
China's silence on US TikTok ban speaks volumes
Beijing's silence on a potential U.S. TikTok ban reflects strategic restraint amid tensions, while U.S. lawmakers debate national security versus free speech, complicating the app's future and U.S.-China relations.
41 comments>Notably, TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.
The Court held that the law could satisfy strict scrutiny (regardless of whether or not it applies), which requires that the Government prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and less restrictive alternatives would not accomplish the Government's goals. That's a high, high bar, and most laws subject to it are found wanting.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear this case. The most interesting legal question for them to decide was whether the law is subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny, but that is off the table now that the D.C. Circuit says it doesn't matter because the law could satisfy either standard.
Direct link to the opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...
The real problem is the algorithmic control this gives China to influence the populations of Western countries. But Meta was found to outsource content moderation to a Canadian company that outsourced Instagram content moderation to Iran.
This is not about privacy. These platforms have become the new media. Getting your news from profit-seeking American and Chinese companies is not ideal in the long run.
Strict Scrutiny has two tests: 1. Compelling Government Interest 2. Narrowly Tailored (least restrictive means)
Note the court does not say foreign actors don't have First Amendment rights.
It's so weirdly targeted to me. Why TikTok only?
Countries are starting to view it as a _serious_ national threat, due to the disinformation risk.
Just look at the Romanian election: A couple of hours ago they annulled the first election round, after a coordinated Russian campaign managed to propel a rather unknown pro-Russian candidate to the top, where they used platforms like TikTok to influence voters.
Not that platforms like Facebook, Snap, etc. are much better, but this comes down to having some control.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2024/jul/21/trump-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-praises-...
Doing 3 things at once, so above is best I can do in trying to describe an underreported and poorly appreciated threat to our nation.
I have found it very helpful for finding voices pretty far to the left. I also have found it very helpful for finding voices among marginalized communities, specifically indigenous folks, black women, anarchists, and queer folks- especially making fairly rational, well informed critiques of the US. And especially as that relates to things like Palestine or the Democrats failures in marketing Harri.
I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
However, the TT algo surfaces these things quite quickly and satisfactorally for me.
I can see how that really is a threat to US powers. I have a pretty good understanding of the various US oppressive actions against subversives, including the all-out war to demonize folks starting with anarchists/trade unionists/communists in the late 1800s to the use of COINTELPRO against folks like the black panthers, AIM, and the anti-war movement.
So from my standpoint, as someone who has gotten legitiamte "free-speech" value from the app, this move seems like just another step in a long history of US repression of political dissent.
If you start from the assumption that everyone who has different politics than you has been brainwashed or manipulated into that differing position, then sure TT seems like a great tool to do that. But if you think that it really takes immense amounts of capital and effort to get people to "form" opinions, you might take the position that the effort could only be done by folks who, say, have control of the "history" curriculum in Texas public schools ot, for instance, the power to have their press releases uncritically published by the New York Times.
Anyhow.
It will be interesting to see the US set up its own version of the Great Firewall, I guess.
TikTok was stopped because it was eating FB's lunch. That's it. There is not a single argument that applies to TikTok that doesn't apply to FB or some other company
This decision could set a dangerous president, pulling us towards a future of authoritarianism where only government approved communication channels are permitted.
>> the Government acknowledges that it lacks specific intelligence that shows the PRC has in the past or is now coercing TikTok into manipulating content in the United States
> (Note 1: the court then shifts the burden back on TikTok: “TikTok never squarely denies that it has ever manipulated content on the TikTok platform at the direction of the PRC.”)
...
>> At bottom, the Government lacks confidence that it has sufficient visibility and resources to monitor TikTok’s promised measures, nor does it have “the requisite trust” that “ByteDance and TTUSDS would comply in good faith.” The court can neither fault nor second guess the Government on these crucial points…
>> The Government “need not wait for a risk to materialize” before acting; its national security decisions often must be “based on informed judgment.” Here the Government has drawn reasonable inferences based upon the evidence it has
> The court can’t second-guess possibly pretextual arguments? The government has “drawn reasonable inferences” about conjectural risks? Those words don’t sound like the rigorous judicial review we expect from strict scrutiny.
...
> Third, the majority repeatedly indicates that the ban won’t necessarily change the content available on TikTok, given that the PRC hasn’t yet engaged in its conjectural influence operation. But which way does this cut? As mentioned above, changing the ownership will change the editorial policies and practices, so inevitably the content would change from the forced divestment. More importantly, doesn’t this raise serious questions about the ban’s efficacy if it doesn’t actually change the content? In other words, if the content stays the same, then means-fit analysis seems potentially undermined.
> (Yes, I would also argue the contrary position–that if the speech were to change, that would be reason to strike down the ban. From my perspective, legislatively picking and choosing owners of speech venues is always constitutionally problematic, regardless of the effects on editorial content).
> There is a fair bit of hand-waving, in which they note that the government presented no actual evidence of China doing anything nefarious with TikTok, but because government officials said “but they could!” that was enough. This sets an extremely low and dangerous bar. Mere speculation about what a foreign government might hypothetically do in the future should not be enough to override the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
> In many ways, this is a continuation of the way the courts often view Fourth Amendment cases, where if the government just yells “national security” loud enough, courts will ignore the plain text of the Fourth Amendment.
...
> The court’s reasoning here is Orwellian. It claims that banning TikTok, and the speech of millions of Americans on the platform, somehow enhances free speech. This is a complete inversion of First Amendment values. The First Amendment protects against government censorship and control of private speech, it doesn’t justify such censorship in the name of preventing foreign influence. The court is essentially arguing that violating the First Amendment is necessary to save it, which is absurd.
...
> The ruling also rejects the idea that this was a Bill of Attainder, by saying that while it does “target” TikTok directly, its remedy is not a “punishment” and therefore that prohibition doesn’t apply. But banning TikTok from operating in the US unless it is sold certainly seems like a punishment. The court’s analysis on this point is not persuasive.
> The court also claims that this bill is, in fact, the least restrictive means of achieving this outcome, rejecting ByteDance’s long-negotiated alternative of having all the data stored in the US on Oracle hardware, and giving Oracle the ability to audit the code. This plan was originally cooked up deliberately under the first Trump administration to support Trump donor Larry Ellison.
Related
TikTok confirms it offered US Government a 'kill switch'
TikTok offered a "kill switch" to the US government amid data protection concerns. Legal disputes continue as ByteDance faces pressure to sell TikTok's US assets by January to avoid a ban.
TikTok confirms it offered US Government a 'kill switch'
TikTok offered a "kill switch" to the US government amid data security concerns. Legal battles persist over potential divestment from ByteDance. Reports suggest data sharing between TikTok and ByteDance.
TikTok collected US user views on issues like abortion and gun control
The U.S. Justice Department accuses TikTok of collecting sensitive data and facilitating communication with ByteDance in China, raising national security concerns. TikTok contests the allegations and potential ban.
The TikTok Case Will Be Determined by What's Behind the Government's Black Lines
The U.S. government defends a potential TikTok ban citing national security risks from ByteDance, while TikTok challenges the evidence's credibility, raising First Amendment concerns and proposing a special master for transparency.
China's silence on US TikTok ban speaks volumes
Beijing's silence on a potential U.S. TikTok ban reflects strategic restraint amid tensions, while U.S. lawmakers debate national security versus free speech, complicating the app's future and U.S.-China relations.