By Caroline Forsey

What we know right now:

• TikTok will be banned this Sunday, January 19th if it doesn’t demonstrate a willingness to divest from ByteDance, it’s Chinese-owned parent company… Unless the Supreme Court agrees with TikTok that its previous ruling infringes on freedom of speech.
• The justices pushed back on TikTok’s stance that its ban infringes on freedom of speech, pointing out that a constitutional right doesn’t impact foreign-owned entities.
• The Supreme Court could rule as early as today.

It’s not looking like a happy-New-Year for TikTok.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments related to TikTok’s ban—and whether it infringes on the First Amendment right—on January 10, 2025, and could rule as early as today.

Here’s what you need to know about the status of the ruling, and what could happen if the ban takes effect.

But first… How’d we get here?

Ahem. Let’s start with some context: The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” was signed into law in April 2024.

The name is a mouthful, but the ruling would prohibit U.S. app stores, as well as web-hosting services, from offering TikTok.

In other words: TikTok would be banned nationwide. (Cue despairing Gen Zers everywhere.)

So what does the Supreme Court want from TikTok?

For TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest its U.S. operations by, well, this Sunday (January 19th) — due to national security concerns over its Chinese ownership and data practices.

The Arguments: TikTok’s Side

During Friday’s oral arguments, TikTok’s attorney, Noel Francisco, argued that the ban violates the First Amendment.

As he puts it, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech.”

He added, “The government has no valid interest in preventing foreign propaganda… The government’s real target, rather, is the speech itself, its fear that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation. That, however, is a decision that the First Amendment leaves to the people.”

Francisco concluded: “[The ban] is also grossly under-inclusive and ignores the most obvious less restrictive alternative: simply banning TikTok, Incorporated, from sharing any sensitive user data with anyone.”

Beyond TikTok’s argument that the ban violates freedom of speech, Francisco underlined a few other key points:

• One: They say there is no documented evidence of the Chinese government accessing user data.
• And two: The imposed timeframe is too tight for TikTok to feasibly separate from ByteDance.

The Rebuttals from the Supreme Court

On Friday, justices seemed skeptical of TikTok’s arguments and questioned how First Amendment rights are being implicated when the law specifically targets a foreign-owned company. (Touche).

As Chief Justice John Roberts put it: “Congress is fine with the [freedom of] expression. They’re not fine with a foreign adversary, as they’ve determined it is, gathering all this information about the 170 million people who use TikTok.”

In other words: The justices are fine with us embarrassing ourselves with …read more

Source:: HubSpot Blog

Author: Aaron