Neal Katyal, who represents TikTok, dives into the free speech challenges posed by the government's potential actions against the platform. Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General, discusses regulatory implications and national security concerns tied to TikTok's foreign ownership. Mark Fisher highlights the creators' perspectives amidst these legal complexities. The conversation intricately explores First Amendment rights, content moderation, and the balance between user privacy and legislative actions, questioning how to protect democracy in the digital landscape.
TikTok argues that government attempts to regulate its operations infringe upon its First Amendment rights by imposing content-based restrictions.
The proposed Act specifically targets TikTok due to concerns about Chinese government influence, raising questions of regulatory fairness in free speech.
Critics of the Act contend that the government has not provided sufficient evidence to justify claims of TikTok's manipulation by foreign entities.
Suggestions for less restrictive solutions highlight the possibility of addressing national security without fully suppressing user expression on TikTok.
Ultimately, the government bears the burden of proving that its security concerns warrant restrictions on free speech associated with TikTok.
Deep dives
First Amendment Implications for TikTok
The case argues that TikTok, as a U.S. company, has First Amendment rights that protect its speech. TikTok claims the proposed Act imposes a burden on its ability to operate by requiring divestiture from its parent company, ByteDance. This restriction is seen as a content-based regulation, specifically targeting TikTok for its user-generated content, which can lead to diminished speech freedoms. Consequently, the disagreement hinges on whether the government can restrict speech based on the identity of a speaker rather than the content being expressed.
Content-Based Nature of the Act
The Act's primary focus is on regulating social media platforms with user-generated content, thus categorizing it as content-based. It uniquely targets TikTok, reflecting governmental concern that the platform could be indirectly influenced by the Chinese government to disseminate misinformation or propaganda. This specific targeting raises questions about the legality of restricting speech based on who owns or controls the platform rather than the speech itself. Therefore, the act's implications pose significant concerns regarding freedom of expression and potential governmental overreach.
Lack of Sufficient Evidence for Foreign Influence
Critics of the Act argue that the government has not presented adequate evidence to validate claims of TikTok's covert manipulation by the Chinese government. TikTok maintains that it has operated transparently and has not engaged in practices that would allow for covert content manipulation. The absence of documented instances where TikTok has acted upon Chinese government directives further calls into question the government's rationale for the Act. Without solid evidence linking TikTok to direct government influence, the justification for the Act weakens considerably.
The Balancing of Interests
The debate revolves around balancing national security interests and free speech protections. The government argues the need to act against potential foreign interference through controlling a widely used communication platform that possesses large amounts of American user data. Proponents of TikTok counter that the government's fears do not justify infringing on First Amendment rights, asserting that users should be able to decide what information to trust independently. This raises essential questions about to what extent the government can regulate speech based on perceived threats without infringing upon constitutional rights.
Alternatives to Divestiture
Suggestions have been made that less restrictive alternatives could adequately address the government’s national security concerns. One alternative mentioned is imposing strict prohibitions on TikTok's data sharing with ByteDance while still allowing TikTok to function. This approach would aim to mitigate data risks without shutting down a major communication platform vital for many American users. If such a solution is practically enforceable, it raises questions about the necessity of the far-reaching measures proposed in the Act.
Implications for American Users
The consequences of enforcing the Act could mean significant disruptions for the millions of Americans who utilize TikTok for various forms of speech, creativity, and commerce. The potential decision to 'go dark' on January 19 could limit the public's access to diverse perspectives offered on the platform. Users who may depend on TikTok for personal expression or business opportunities would have their rights curtailed without sufficient cause. This brings into sharp focus the impact of legislative actions on free speech and the importance of protecting platforms that serve as important communication channels.
Government Burden of Proof
The onus is on the government to provide a compelling justification for the restrictions imposed by the Act. Legal arguments suggest that the claims made regarding foreign manipulation and security risks must withstand scrutiny, demonstrating clear links to actual incursion of rights or tangible harms. If the government cannot sufficiently establish the necessity for such stringent measures, the Act may be deemed unconstitutional. As such, the burden of proving legitimacy lies heavily on the shoulders of the government, adding pressure to present credible evidence.
Historical Context of Speech Regulation
Historically, the regulation of speech has been guided by principles that prioritize the protection of expression against governmental whims. There exists a strong tradition in American jurisprudence that opposes limiting speech based on potential content manipulation by foreign entities. The Act's supporters argue it aligns with historical precedent to regulate foreign ownership of critical communication channels. Detractors counter that the fundamental values associated with free speech should take precedence over fears of influence, arguing against eroding these principles in the name of security.
Severability of the Act's Provisions
The Act contains a severability clause, suggesting that even if one portion is found unconstitutional, the remainder could still be enforced. This raises discussions about whether specific provisions directly targeting TikTok could be severed, leaving intact the broader legislative aims related to national security. The implications of severability highlight the complexities in legislative language and enforcement, emphasizing how particular phrases and stipulations can influence interpretations and future applications of the law. Ultimately, this clause reflects an acknowledgment that distinct elements of the Act may stand or fall independently regarding constitutional scrutiny.
The Broader Debate on Social Media Regulation
The discussion surrounding TikTok also touches on a larger conversation about how social media should be regulated and the role of foreign influence. With increasing concerns about privacy, disinformation, and the influence of foreign powers on American soil, the need for regulatory frameworks is becoming more pressing. However, the challenge lies in crafting regulations that protect users without infringing on First Amendment rights that are vital for democratic discourse. Thus, any regulation must strive for a careful balance that protects both security and free expression.
Petitioner: TikTok, Inc. Respondent: Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General.
Advocates:
Noel J. Francisco (for the Petitioners TikTok, Inc., et al.)
Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.)
Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the Respondent)
Facts of the case (from oyez.org)
TikTok is a social media platform with approximately 170 million monthly U.S. users that allows users to create and watch short video clips. The platform’s content is determined by a recommendation engine originally developed by ByteDance, a China-based company that is TikTok’s ultimate parent. While TikTok created a U.S. subsidiary (TTUSDS) and partnered with Oracle to handle U.S. operations and data security, ByteDance retains significant control over the platform's global operations and source code development.
In response to national security concerns about Chinese influence over TikTok, both the Trump and Biden administrations attempted various measures to address these risks, including attempted forced divestiture and transaction bans. After lengthy negotiations over TikTok’s proposed National Security Agreement proved unsuccessful, Congress passed a law in 2024 requiring “foreign adversary controlled applications” (specifically including TikTok) to divest from foreign ownership or face effective shutdown through prohibitions on U.S. companies providing hosting and distribution services. The law takes effect on January 19, 2025, though companies can avoid the prohibitions by completing a qualified divestiture that eliminates foreign adversary control and operational relationships.
Three sets of petitioners (ByteDance/TikTok, Based Politics, and eight individual TikTok creators) filed constitutional challenges to the Act in May 2024, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Act survived constitutional scrutiny.
Question
Does the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violate the First Amendment?
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
