The Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that banning TikTok does not violate the First Amendment. The popular app could face a ban in the US as early as Sunday. In his final days in office, President Joe Biden is working to prevent the ban from taking effect.
On Friday, all nine SCOTUS justices agreed with the opinion, “We conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate the petitioners’ First Amendment rights.” The decision is a blow to TikTok that was arguing banning the platform was a violation of Freedom of Speech.
Following the ruling, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) explained that banning TikTok is censorship. “When tik-tok goes dark, please remember I voted against the so-called tik-tok ban because the legislation was overly broad and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship,” he posted on X.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) concurred, explaining, “Millions of Americans express themselves on TikTok on a daily basis, and it’s just wrong for the government to ban it.” 170 million Americans use TikTok.
In March, Biden signed a bill that ordered TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to divest its shares from the company within six months or face an effective ban in the US. The deadline for ByteDance to sell TikTok is Sunday.
Most of the public debate over the bill surrounds the claims that Beijing could use the data it obtains from TikTok against the US. However, Congress only passed the bill after users shared overwhelming pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli content about Tel Aviv’s onslaught in Gaza.
“It was slow going until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok,” Jacob Helberg, a member of a congressional research and advisory panel called the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, explained. “People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app.”
In the runup to the deadline, the Biden administration has been “exploring options” to not enforce the ban that comes into effect on the last full day of Biden’s Presidency. In response to the ruling White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden would leave the decision to President-elect Donald Trump.
“President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the president’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law,” she said. “Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday.”
Trump posted on Truth Social that he would address the issue in his first days back in the White House. “The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not too distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!” he wrote.
On Friday, President-elect Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He described the call as “very good” and said they discussed a range of issues, including TikTok.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute. He hosts The Kyle Anzalone Show and is co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Connor Freeman.
Banning TT isn't a 1A violation- TT is just a tool, one of many available to US consumers. A ban on TT isn't a ban on free speech at all. But it has backfired, in that TT refugees are flocking to RedNote which is under even MORE Chinese influence than TT and will no doubt expose US youth to 'Communism with Chinese Characteristics'. That's fine with me- we need a sea change of the US political landscape already.
By that logic, shutting down one newspaper or shutting up one organization, isn’t a 1A violation — after all, there are other newspapers and other organizations.
That depends on what the newspaper/ organization is doing. If an organization is breaking the law the 1A does not protect them. In this case, there is a real risk of Chinese operating companies using this app to collect data on Americans. The law simply ask for ownership of the company to change. The US government did not confiscated Tiktok like they did to Bayer in WW1,
The law doesn’t “ask” for anything. It just seizes other people’s property because some parasitic nobs are hopping up and down screeching “national security.”
Tiktok property is not being seized.
What, they repealed the forced sale provision?
Words are.
Breaking the law — key word. When and where has this legal assertion being tested? Any court of law brought down a decision that a law has been broken? Any charges? Any examples? This is a purely a political decision meant to warn younger generations of “yellow peril”.
It will backfire, unless Trump finds an elegant way to solve the problem. But should the owner decide to shut down rather than being forced to sell cheap — is there an option? May be a better offer?
What I said is that the first amendment does not protect any body or any organization from being shutdown if they break the law. That is a general statement which is true.
Then our government needs to be shut down.
Doublespeek abounds.
Exactly. This slippery slope just got a major momentum. Censorship is now legal.
Censorship of national security information has always been legal. You can't publish the design of nuclear weapons and call it free speech.
Yes, you can — and it's been more than half a century since the Whole Earth Catalog did.
"Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday." In other words, Biden does not have the guts to follow the law and make the tough decision. Little wonder why he was kicked out office by a felon.
Prediction: Donald Trump will issue an XO that breathes new life into TikTok, which allows him to keep his campaign promise. Subsequently, the courts will overrule and eventually, it will be sold to someone like Kevin O'Leary.
BTW, I abhor the idea of any sort of restrictions on speech; however, I am fully aware that the CCP controls TikTok's algorithm. That is not cool.
Other Chinese messaging sites, Lemon8 and Red Note, are garnering quite a bit of interest.
So it goes.
Anything to keep the Chinese away and maintain the hegemony…! That would be the fair competition… American Way…!
Wasn’t because of China.
Direct fear from China…!
Is it possible that we are seing sale price impasse?
I LOVE TikTok!
I guess I'll have to pull up the opinion to understand the court's logic. But, from my perspective, the primary motivation for banning TikTok was to suppress free speech, specifically speech about what's happening in Gaza. There is also the question of property rights. Does the US have the right to seize a highly profitable business from one party, then give it to someone else?
That seems flatly unamerican to me. What if the situation is reversed? For example, what if the government of China were to order General Motors to sell its entire investment in China because the US 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 use the GPS systems in these cars to track Chinese owners? Would such a thing 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 be about National Security? Or would it be about eliminating a significant competitor?
"Does the US have the right to seize a highly profitable business from one party, then give it to someone else" They do for national security. See Bayer corporations in WW1.
It was entirely about Israel, as Information Liberation has shown. When the Gaza holocaust began the ADL worried because there were about ten times more pro-Palestinian videos and likes. Alan Greenblatt, head of ADL, is caught on video saying "We have a major TikTok problem."
Greenblatt went to Israel to tell Knesset how important it was to "capture" TikTok and also silence Wikipedia:
Antony Blinken:
Here is Antony Blinken saying TikTok should be shut down because of Gaza:
Ben Shapiro of course claims it is an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" to say the ban is because of Israel, despite members of Congress making their intentions clear.
The Jewish Federations of North America on Twitter, March 2024:
The Wall Street Journal reported that Mike Gallagher, R-WI, pushed for a TikTok ban because of Israel:
Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi concurs:
Interference!
Glenn Greenwald showed on Twitter how both the WSJ and the Economist said the ban was because of Gaza. Here's The Economist:
All of this documented thanks to Information Liberation. They note that TikTok tried to bend over backward to please the ADL:
Rand Paul (R-KY) weighs in: https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1880712790064668699
Scrolled through TikTok in its last hours and found so much humanity not found in the American government. All 3 of our branches of government are hopelessly infected with the military industrial virus and will stop at nothing to fearmonger about China.
The final story about TikTok has yet to be written. We will see what Elon Musk once to do.
Hi Tim:
“Once” to do?…
Wants to do.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark! I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.
Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations.
I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up. Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions.
Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.
Jan 19, 2025, 10:00 AM
“Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok.”
Without US approval, people who want to use TikTok laugh at and ignore Trump and use TikTok whether Trump likes it or not. Just as with Biden.
The Emperor of America worries about his inauguration despite numerous other visual media offerings, and capitalistically ushers the US into a new era of oligarchs. Perhaps an informatics specialist can help solve the problem in the client's cache or the routing to the server differently.
https://developers.tiktok.com/
https://nordvpn.com/blog/does-tiktok-spy-on-you/
https://www.techaheadcorp.com/blog/decoding-tiktok-system-design-architecture/
https://spyscape.com/article/should-you-be-worried-about-tiktok-heres-how-to-protect-your-privacy
Here he comes to save the Day!………. https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1880964280532468172