Lawfare Daily: Jane Bambauer, Ramya Krishnan, and Alan Rozenshtein on the Constitutionality of the TikTok Bill
Sep 18, 2024
auto_awesome
In this intriguing discussion, guests Jane Bambauer, a Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute; and Alan Rozenshtein, an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota, delve into the constitutionality of the TikTok bill. They examine national security concerns, user privacy, and the implications for First Amendment rights. The panel also critiques both TikTok’s defense and government arguments, exploring the balance between corporate rights and individual freedoms in the face of legislative challenges.
The TikTok bill mandates ByteDance to sell the platform due to national security concerns over data privacy and foreign influence.
Discussions during court hearings revealed skepticism about TikTok's First Amendment defense concerning its foreign ownership and user rights.
Deep dives
National Security Concerns Over TikTok
Congress raised significant national security concerns regarding TikTok, primarily due to its ownership by the Chinese company ByteDance. There is a fear that the Chinese government could influence content moderation practices, potentially manipulating the algorithm to promote divisive or harmful content while suppressing opposing views. Additionally, the app raises data privacy concerns as sensitive user information may be stored on Chinese servers, allowing governmental access and control. These issues prompted Congress to mandate that TikTok either divest from its Chinese ownership or risk being banned in the U.S.
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, or the TikTok bill, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok by January 2025, or face a ban in the United States. This legislation also empowers the president to mandate divestiture of similar foreign-controlled applications deemed a national security threat. In response, TikTok has undertaken initiatives like Project Texas, aiming to relocate sensitive operations to a U.S. cloud service to address security concerns, although skepticism remains regarding its effectiveness against the legislative demands. The government’s stance fluctuated significantly during court hearings, with arguments surrounding the viability and seriousness of Project Texas questioned by judges.
First Amendment Rights at Stake
TikTok's legal argument hinges largely on First Amendment rights, contending that its curation practices are protected speech. However, the court’s questioning indicated skepticism particularly about TikTok's ownership by a foreign entity undermining those rights. The advocacy for American users' First Amendment rights emerged as a crucial point, with arguments highlighting that the real stakes lie in the access and expression rights of TikTok's 150 million American users. As the debate unfolds, the effectiveness of TikTok's defense largely depends on framing these user rights adequately against the backdrop of national security.
Judicial Perspectives on National Security and Free Speech
Judges displayed apprehension in balancing national security interests against First Amendment protections during the hearings. A significant concern expressed was how to define the threshold at which foreign influence becomes an acceptable reason to curtail free speech. The judges appeared cautious about overstepping legislative boundaries while dismissing the notion that national security should exempt any platform from scrutiny. The complexity of whether foreign content manipulation constitutes a forfeiture of American users' rights to diverse information presents a daunting challenge for the judiciary in reaching a conclusion.
Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.