The future of TikTok in the United States hangs in the balance as Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism towards the social media platform’s free speech arguments. With a January 19th deadline looming for Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a US ban, legal experts predict the court will likely uphold the divestment mandate.
Several justices questioned the ties between ByteDance and the Chinese government, voicing concerns about potential access to data of 170 million US TikTok users. Chief Justice John Roberts pointedly asked, “Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is in fact subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
The US Supreme Court building. (REUTERS/Will Dunham)
TikTok argued its proprietary algorithm constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment, with an attorney for TikTok creators asserting their right to choose their publishing platform. However, Justice Elena Kagan countered that the divestment law “is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn’t have First Amendment rights.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted concerns about TikTok’s data collection practices, noting that the app gathers information not only on its users but also on their contacts, potentially without their consent. “The threat of using that information is what is at issue,” she stated. “It’s not whether the user thinks it’s okay.”
Giovanna Gonzalez protests a potential TikTok ban outside the US Capitol. (REUTERS/Craig Hudson)
While former President Trump, who previously suggested he would “save TikTok,” has requested the court suspend the deadline to allow for a negotiated resolution, legal experts believe this is unlikely. During his presidency, Trump attempted to force a sale of TikTok over national security concerns, with Microsoft and Oracle as potential buyers.
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued on behalf of the government, stating that while it’s unclear if President Biden could extend the deadline, he could choose not to enforce the law.
The government’s stance that the law doesn’t restrict free speech drew criticism from some justices. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the ban was a speaker-based restriction, inherently implying viewpoint or content-based restrictions.
Prelogar countered that the law aims to prevent the Chinese government from collecting sensitive information on Americans, particularly minors who might later work in national security roles. This argument resonated with justices across the ideological spectrum. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns about China using this information for espionage or blackmail.
Meta’s stock performance. (Yahoo Finance)
If the Supreme Court upholds the ban, TikTok’s 170 million US users and the broader tech landscape will face significant consequences. Competitors like Meta could benefit from a redistribution of advertising revenue. Meanwhile, TikTok users, particularly small business owners, worry about losing their content and their livelihood. Experts advise users to back up their content to safeguard their intellectual property.
Cornell University law professor G.S. Hans, while critical of the law’s “underspecific” national security basis, acknowledged the validity of privacy and data collection concerns. He cautioned that the targeted nature of the law raises concerns about potential future government actions against other speech platforms. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for free speech, national security, and the future of social media in the United States.
