文档内容
外刊读写营第8期 公众号/B站：三言两语杂货社 Unit 2
The TikTok court case has staggering implications for free speech in
America
The free speech implications of the coming ban on TikTok in the United States are
staggering and unprecedented. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit upheld a federal law that requires TikTok to stop operating
here on Jan. 19 if its owner, ByteDance, does not sell it to a non-Chinese company.
The 150 million Americans who use TikTok to share and receive information no
longer would be able to do so.
In upholding the law, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals minimized the 1st Amendment
impact of banning TikTok, while uncritically accepting the federal government’s
claim that national security is threatened by this app.
This is the first time in history that the government has ever banned a medium of
communication. It is not simply outlawing a single newspaper or publisher, which
itself would be deeply troubling under the 1st Amendment, but banning a platform
on which billions of videos are uploaded a year. As the circuit court’s chief judge,
Sri Srinivasan, said in a concurring opinion, the TikTok ban will cause a huge
number of people in this country to “lose access to an outlet for expression, a
source of community and even a means of income.”
The decision stressed that TikTok is controlled by a “foreign adversary,” the People’s
Republic of China, and that those outside the United States do not have 1st
Amendment rights. But this ignores the rights of millions of users of TikTok in this
country to post on the site and to receive information. Moreover, the Supreme
Court has long made clear that the identity of a speaker should not matter under
the 1st Amendment. The central premise of the 1st Amendment is that more speech
is inherently better, regardless of the source.
The court of appeals recognized the free speech implications of the TikTok ban but
concluded the ban was justified by national security considerations. In doing so,
the court professed the need to give great “deference” to the government and its外刊读写营第8期 公众号/B站：三言两语杂货社 Unit 2
“evaluation of the facts” concerning TikTok.
The circuit court identified two national security concerns. First, that China would
use TikTok to “collect data of and about persons in the United States.” There is no
dispute that China does this, but the question the court does not answer is how
these data can be used to harm national security. The court points to China being
able to mine the data for “commercial” benefits, but this seems quite different from
showing that China can gain a national security advantage from knowing what
Americans upload and watch on TikTok.
The second rationale given by the court is even more problematic: China will
“covertly manipulate content on TikTok” to “undermine democracy” and “extend
the PRC’s influence abroad.” The court said that China “threatens to distort free
speech on an important medium of communication.”
Under this rationale, the United States could ban a foreign newspaper or a book
published in another country from being available in this country because it is seen
as undermining democracy. Indeed, this justification would allow the federal
government to prohibit any book published by the Chinese government because it
could be deemed an effort to “extend the PRC’s influence” in the United States. The
government never should have the power to censor speech because it dislikes the
message expressed.
There are still several paths to saving TikTok in the United States. There certainly
will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices could grant review on an
expedited basis and decide the case by Jan. 19, or they could temporarily keep the
law from going into effect until they hear and resolve the issue by the end of the
court’s term in late June.
Another possibility is for President-elect Donald Trump to try to save TikTok once
he is inaugurated, the day after the TikTok ban is scheduled to go into effect. Trump
has explicitly said he wants to do this, but it is unclear how he could accomplish it.
He cannot repeal the law banning TikTok; that would take an act of Congress. He外刊读写营第8期 公众号/B站：三言两语杂货社 Unit 2
could direct the Department of Justice to not enforce the law. But it is doubtful that
would be enough assurance for companies like Apple and Google to continue to
make the TikTok app available knowing of the potential liability for doing so. If
there is a sale or restructuring of the ownership of TikTok, Trump, under the law,
can deem it no longer to be under foreign control and allow it to continue to
operate. If a deal is in the works, the president can grant a one-time 90-day
extension before the ban goes into effect.
The TikTok case is a difficult one involving issues never before faced by the courts.
Yet when the implications for speech are so massive and the justifications for the
restrictions so speculative, the only conclusion is that the D.C. Circuit struck the
wrong balance. The Supreme Court should correct it.
