US Supreme Court criticizes TikTok’s arguments against impending ban | Social media news

US Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about a challenge filed by video-sharing platform TikTok, as it seeks to overturn a law that would force the app to be sold or banned by January 19.

Friday’s hearing is the latest in a legal saga that pits the US government against ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 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 received strong bipartisan support, with lawmakers citing concerns that China-based ByteDance is collecting user data and handing it over to the Chinese government. Outgoing US President Joe Biden eventually I fell That’s in the law.

But ByteDance and TikTok users contested the constitutionality of the law, arguing that banning the app would limit their rights to free expression.

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

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

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case comes at a time when trade tensions continue between the United States and China, the two largest economies in the world.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is scheduled to begin his second term one day after the ban began, did so He promised to “save” the platform During his presidential campaign.

This represents a reversal from his first term in office, when he unsuccessfully tried to ban TikTok.

In December, Trump called on the Supreme Court to suspend implementation of the law to give his administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the issues in the case.”

Noel Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, assured the court that the law threatens to shut down one of the most popular platforms in the United States.

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

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

“Weaponizing TikTok” to harm the United States

TikTok has about 170 million US users, about half the US population.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is defending the Biden administration, said Chinese control of TikTok poses a serious threat to US national security.

She explained that the huge amount of data the app can collect about users and their contacts could give China a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment, and espionage.

China could then “weaponize TikTok 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 receptive to these arguments during Friday’s hearing. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pressed TikTok’s lawyers about the company’s Chinese ownership.

“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is actually subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked.

“It seems to me that you are ignoring the main concern here of Congress — which is Chinese manipulation of content and acquisition and collection of content.”

“Congress doesn’t care what goes on TikTok,” Roberts added, seemingly ignoring free speech arguments.

Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan also noted that April’s TikTok law “only targets this foreign company, which has no First Amendment rights.”

TikTok, ByteDance and app users had it resume A lower court ruling upheld the law and rejected their argument that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech protections.