Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether to uphold a law that would ban the updating, maintenance, or distribution of the popular social media app TikTok in the United State unless its parent company, ByteDance, divests it.
This case could have broader implications on how the courts balance free speech and similar rights when the government alleges a serious interest like national security beyond just this particular law.
The arguments centered around the balance between free speech and national security concerns as well if such a divestment is the means necessary and if it directly impacts the speech of an American company or users.
Jennifer Huddleston, a Senior Fellow in Technology Policy at the Cato Institute, issued a statement on the case:
“The underlying questions of the appropriate scrutiny given to laws that impact speech or association when the government alleges a national security interest, as well as whether proposals such as the divest-or-ban requirement are content-neutral, will have much broader implications.
As seen in arguments today, there remains much debate about what the underlying national security question is and whether it is content-neutral, focusing merely on potential foreign parent company data access, or if it more directly impacts the content TikTok decides to host, the way it displays it, or the choice of platform of its users. ”
Huddleston also points out the rapidly approaching deadline, noting “the underlying law is set to go into effect on Jan. 19, just before a new administration takes office, unless President Joe Biden issues an optional 90-day extension, or the Supreme Court intervenes either by temporarily preventing its effectiveness through an administrative stay or a preliminary injunction or decides the case.”
If you would like to speak with Jennifer about this, please reach out to pr@cato.org.
