Key Takeaways:
– The US Supreme Court has questioned the First Amendment rights of TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.
– The new law signed by President Biden demands ByteDance to sell TikTok by January 19.
– ByteDance claims the law will limit the company’s rights and the popular app would lose access to a key algorithm.
– The Supreme Court justices have suggested that the law is designed to prevent Chinese policy influence, rather than restrict free speech.
– Lawyers of TikTok and creators were content with their presentation before the court.
The Future of TikTok in the US
TikTok, the worldwide trending short-video platform, might be in for a rough few days. On Friday, the justices of the US Supreme Court asked a probing question. Why should they step in to stop a law directing the sale of TikTok within nine days? With a clear split along ideological lines, they pushed for answers on how anyone except ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, would have their rights cut short by this law.
ByteDance’s Stand
ByteDance has the copyright to the algorithm which determines the content that TikTok users see. According to the law, TikTok might lose access to this algorithm if it is separated from its parent company. ByteDance argues this is similar to losing a form of speech.
The court seemed to imply that only ByteDance could directly suffer from this law. Why is that? Because as a foreign company, ByteDance doesn’t naturally own First Amendment rights.
Congress’s Involvement
The law passed with support from both parties in Congress. After President Joe Biden signed it, it established new rules for ByteDance. They must sell off TikTok by January 19, or else the super popular app will vanish from app stores in the United States.
The lawmakers’ intent appearing to be more about addressing the potential control and ownership of the Chinese Communist Party than content restriction. Fearing access to user data by the Chinese government, Congress passed the law labeling the Chinese government as an international adversary.
A View from the Bench
Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative wing, painted the law’s goal in simple terms. They’re not saying TikTok should stop, but the Chinese should stop controlling TikTok. In other words, they do not see the law as a hindrance to free expression.
Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, also suggested that the law would mainly affect ByteDance, and not its U.S. subsidiary. She proposed that TikTok, after separation from ByteDance, could start developing its own algorithm
National Security vs. Free Speech
Noel Francisco, who represented ByteDance and TikTok at the hearing, maintained that the Chinese government was the true target of the law. He argued that the aim was to halt content manipulation and that the law violated the Constitution as it amounted to censorship. Francisco, hinting at national security arguments put forth by the government, maintained that the law is of a ‘content-based’ nature.
Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok’s creators, argued that the law to deter content distortion was not permissible by the First Amendment.
TikTok’s Reaction
Following the arguments, the lawyers for TikTok and its creators expressed confidence in their case. TikTok users have also shared stories about how the platform helped them build livelihoods. Digital platform GigBit has allowed Chloe Joy Sexton to grow her baking business exponentially, launching a cookbook and shipping cookies worldwide.
In conclusion, the future of TikTok, a beloved platform for millions in the US, hangs on the final decision of the Supreme Court. The decision could impact not just the functioning of a social media app but also the broader implications of First Amendment rights on the international stage.