The two sides in a major clash at the Supreme Court over measures that could shut down TikTok used final written arguments Friday, sharply arguing about China’s influence on the site and the role the First Amendment should play in assessing the law.
Their brief, filed on an exceptionally shortened schedule by the justices last month, was part of a high-stakes showdown over the government’s insistence that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, sell or shut down the app’s operations in the United States. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a special session next Friday in hopes of resolving the case before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline.
A court ruling that could come this month will decide the fate of a powerful and pervasive cultural phenomenon that uses sophisticated algorithms to deliver personalized short videos to users. TikTok has become a top source of information and entertainment, especially for the younger generation.
“Rarely has the court been faced with a free speech case that matters to so many people,” said a brief filed Friday on behalf of a group of TikTok users. “170 million Americans regularly use TikTok to connect, stay entertained, and follow news and current events. “If the government wins here, American users will lose access to billions of videos on the platform.”
The brief only provided a glimpse or indirect reference to President-elect Donald J. Trump’s unusual request last week for the Supreme Court to temporarily block the law so he could resolve the issue after he takes office.
The deadline set by law for TikTok to be sold or shut down is January 19, the day before President Trump’s inauguration.
“These unfortunate times hinder President Trump’s ability to manage America’s foreign policy, protect our national security, and pursue a resolution to save the social media platforms that provide a popular outlet for 170 million Americans,” he said. revealed. To exercise core First Amendment rights.”
The law allows the president to extend the deadline by 90 days in limited circumstances. However, this provision does not appear to apply. That’s because the president must certify to Congress that significant progress has been made on the sale based on “related binding legal agreements.”
TikTok’s brief emphasized that the First Amendment protects Americans’ access to speech by foreign enemies, even if it is propaganda. They wrote that an alternative to outright censorship is a legal requirement to disclose the sources of speech.
“Disclosure is the time-tested and least restrictive alternative for addressing concerns about public misunderstanding about the source or nature of speech received, including in diplomatic and national security contexts,” TikTok’s brief said.
The user briefing also reflected that. “There is a requirement to disclose foreign influence to the extent permitted by our customs and case law, so the public can have complete information to decide what to believe.”
The government said that approach would not work. “Such general and ongoing disclosures will clearly be ineffective,” U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote Friday.
TikTok v. submitted last week. Garland case, no. In its brief on 24-656, the government said foreign propaganda could be dealt with without violating the Constitution.
“The First Amendment would not have required the United States to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communications channels and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War,” he wrote. Today, foreign enemies own and control TikTok.”
User reports disputed that statement. “In fact, the United States tolerated the publication of Pravda, a typical Soviet propaganda tool, in this country at the height of the Cold War,” the report said.
TikTok itself said it was wrong to criticize the government for failing to “outright deny” claims that “ByteDance censored or manipulated content on its platform at the direction of the Chinese government.”
Censorship is a “loaded term,” TikTok’s overview said. In any case, the report adds, “Complainant directly denies that TikTok has ever removed or restricted content in other countries at China’s request.”
