December 18th, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over TikTok divestment law

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear TikTok's challenge to a potential ban on January 10, citing First Amendment concerns and potential harm to U.S. businesses and content creators.

Read original articleLink Icon
U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over TikTok divestment law

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sells the app. The law, known as the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is based on national security concerns regarding TikTok's ownership. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 10, just before the law is set to take effect on January 19. TikTok and ByteDance, along with a group of users, argue that the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. TikTok claims that a ban would significantly harm U.S. businesses and content creators who rely on the platform. The Supreme Court has not issued an injunction to block the law from taking effect but will consider the request during the upcoming oral arguments. The case has gained attention as it coincides with the transition to a new presidential administration, with TikTok hoping for a more favorable outcome under President-elect Donald Trump, who has expressed a positive view of the app.

- The Supreme Court will hear TikTok's challenge to a potential ban on January 10.

- The law requires ByteDance to sell TikTok or face being removed from U.S. platforms.

- TikTok argues the law violates free speech rights under the First Amendment.

- A ban could result in significant financial losses for U.S. businesses and content creators.

- The case is influenced by the upcoming change in presidential administration.

Link Icon 11 comments
By @mrandish - 4 months
I haven't examined the specific assertions and supporting evidence (if any) the government has cited but I'm glad SCOTUS is taking a look at this. My sense is the allegations so far are pretty vague and masked behind a curtain of 'national security' secrecy.

The government targeting a company like this is extraordinary and should require due process with supporting evidence. Unfortunately, details of allegations remaining secret due to claims of 'national security' has a poor historical track record of abuse.

By @throwaway48476 - 4 months
I'm surprised the US doesn't have 'reciprocity' laws that target the Chinese practices.
By @dzonga - 4 months
before when I was naive - I thoughts courts were impartial or I believed they were.

but now court rulings lean politically depending on who appointed the judge or the judge's personal beliefs.

By @ChrisArchitect - 4 months
Related:

TikTok divestment law upheld by federal appeals court

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42340959

TikTok Asks Supreme Court to Block Law Banning Its U.S. Operations

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42436587

US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42427132

By @webdoodle - 4 months
What is the difference with Reddit? Tencent/Jack Ma is still a major shareholder, and listed as a director, giving him special access to Reddit's internals.
By @xyzzy4747 - 4 months
Congress plus the President's signing authority have massive power and broad latitude to make decisions. I don't think TikTok stands a chance really. I wonder if there is a place I could bet on it.
By @stonesthrowaway - 4 months
Trump said he'd save tik tok and if he does, he should be allowed to run for a 3rd term because he'd win easily.
By @2OEH8eoCRo0 - 4 months
They need to squash the idea that corporations, foreign ones no less, have speech that's protected.

If internet platforms do have speech then they should be liable for it.