Ramya Krishnan

From September 18, 2024: 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.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ramya Krishnan is a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, while Mary-Rose Papendrea is a constitutional law professor at UNC. They debate the legality of banning TikTok, emphasizing First Amendment rights versus national security concerns. The discussion highlights how TikTok's popularity among youth clashes with the government's fears about data security. They explore legal precedents and suggest that a blanket ban may not be the best solution, advocating for alternative risk management strategies instead.

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.

Experts discuss the TikTok divestment and ban bill, exploring First Amendment concerns, national security risks, and foreign platform ownership. They debate the implications of Chinese control, data privacy issues, and potential remedies. The podcast also touches on speculative risk, quality sleep, money-saving apps, and the uncertain future of the bill in the Senate.

Over the past few years, TikTok has become a uniquely polarizing social media platform. On the one hand, millions of users, especially those in their teens and twenties, love the app. On the other hand, the government is concerned that TikTok's vulnerability to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party makes it a serious national security threat. There's even talk of banning the app altogether. But would that be legal? In particular, does the First Amendment allow the government to ban an application that’s used by millions to communicate every day?On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Matt Perault, director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare Senior Editor and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, spoke with Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Mary-Rose Papendrea, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, to think through the legal and policy implications of a TikTok ban.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.