‘Major Blow to Freedom of Expression’: US Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban
ANGLO AMERICA, 20 Jan 2025
Brett Wilkins | Common Dreams - TRANSCEND Media Service
TikTok users protest against a ban on the popular social media site outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on 13 Mar 2024. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
One ACLU campaigner blasted the justices for “giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn’t like.”
17 Jan 2025 – The United States Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a federal law banning TikTok if its Chinese parent company does not sell the popular social media app by Sunday [19 Jan].
The justices ruled in TikTok v. Garland, an unsigned opinion, that “Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
“The problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional,” the high court wrote. “Speaking with and in favor of a foreign adversary is one thing. Allowing a foreign adversary to spy on Americans is another.”
President Joe Biden signed legislation last April forcing ByteDance, which owns TikTok, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within a year or face a nationwide ban. Proponents of the ban cited national security concerns, while digital rights and free speech defenders condemned the law.
Approximately 170 million Americans use TikTok, which is especially popular with younger people and small-to-medium-sized businesses, and contributes tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
The ACLU—which this week called TikTok v. Garland “one of the most important First Amendment cases of our time”—condemned Friday’s decision as “a major blow to freedom of expression online.”
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is incredibly disappointing, allowing the government to shut down an entire platform and the free speech rights of so many based on fear-mongering and speculation,” ACLU National Security Project deputy director Patrick Toomey said in a statement.
“By refusing to block this ban, the Supreme Court is giving the executive branch unprecedented power to silence speech it doesn’t like, increasing the danger that sweeping invocations of ‘national security’ will trump our constitutional rights,” Toomey added.
The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said in response to Friday’s ruling, “We are deeply disappointed that the court failed to require the strict First Amendment scrutiny required in a case like this, which would’ve led to the inescapable conclusion that the government’s desire to prevent potential future harm had to be rejected as infringing millions of Americans’ constitutionally protected free speech.”
“We are disappointed to see the court sweep past the undisputed content-based justification for the law—to control what speech Americans see and share with each other—and rule only based on the shaky data privacy concerns,” EFF added.
The Biden administration said Friday that it would leave enforcement of any ban up to the incoming Trump administration.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that Republican U.S President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to take office next week, is weighing an executive order to suspend enforcement of the ban for 60-90 days.
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who earlier this week introduced a bill to delay ByteDance’s sale deadline until October, said Friday: “I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the TikTok ban. I am not done fighting to pass my 270-day extension. We need more time.”
______________________________________________
Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Full Bio >
Go to Original – commondreams.org
Tags: Capitalism, China, Competition, Media, Mind Control, Social media, TikTok, USA
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.