US Supreme Court critical of TikTok’s arguments against threatened ban | News on social networks

Justices of the United States Supreme Court have expressed skepticism about the challenge brought by the video-sharing platform TikTok, as it seeks to strike down a law that would have forced the app to be sold or banned by January 19.

Friday’s hearing is the latest in a legal saga that has pitted the US government and ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, in a battle over free speech and national security concerns.

The law in question was signed into law in April, declaring that ByteDance would face a deadline to sell its US shares or face a ban.

The bill had strong bipartisan support, with lawmakers citing fears that China’s ByteDance could collect user data and provide it to the Chinese government. Outgoing US President Joe Biden finally signed that in the law.

But users of ByteDance and TikTok challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that banning the app would limit their free speech rights.

During Friday’s oral argument, the Supreme Court appeared swayed by the government’s position that the app allows the Chinese government to spy on Americans and conduct covert influence operations.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also floated the possibility of issuing a so-called administrative stay that would temporarily put the law on hold while the court decides how to proceed.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case comes at a time of ongoing trade tensions between the US and China, the world’s two largest economies.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to begin his second term the day after the ban takes effect, had promised to “save” the platform during his presidential campaign.

It marks a reversal from his first term, when he tried unsuccessfully to ban TikTok.

In December, Trump urged the Supreme Court to delay implementation of the law to give his administration “an opportunity to seek a political solution to the issues at issue in this case.”

Noel Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, told the court that the law risks shutting down one of the most popular platforms in the US.

“This act should not stand,” said Francisco. He dismissed the fear “that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese disinformation” as “a decision that the First Amendment leaves to the people.”

Francisco asked the justices to at least temporarily suspend the law, “which will allow you to carefully consider this important issue and, for the reasons explained by the president-elect, potentially challenge the case.”

‘Weaponize TikTok’ to harm the US

TikTok has around 170 million US users, roughly half of the US population.

Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar, speaking for the Biden administration, said China’s control of TikTok poses a serious threat to US national security.

The vast amount of data the app could collect on users and their contacts could give China a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage, she explained.

China could then “use TikTok as a weapon at any time to harm the United States.”

Prelogar added that the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from taking steps to protect Americans and their data.

Several justices appeared to buy into those arguments during Friday’s hearing. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pressed TikTok’s lawyers over the company’s Chinese ownership.

“Should we ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked.

“It seems to me that you are ignoring the main concern of Congress here – which is China’s manipulation of content and the acquisition and harvesting of content.”

“Congress doesn’t care what’s on TikTok,” Roberts added, appearing to dismiss free speech arguments.

Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan also suggested that April’s TikTok law “is only aimed at this foreign corporation, which has no First Amendment rights.”

TikTok, ByteDance and app users had appealed a lower court ruling upholding the law and rejecting their argument that it violates the US Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech.