Minute Summary
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act banned TikTok after 270 days if ByteDance was unable or unwilling to sell its stake in TikTok. The petitioners, or those burdened by such an Act, argued that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, the Supreme Court differed on this assessment, arguing that it is done to reduce concerns over a national security issue in a manner that does no more than necessary, does not discriminate against specific kinds of content, and does not directly burden the petitioners because it is regulating the corporation, not those producing content. Thus, the Court affirmed the Act’s constitutionality.
Important Definitions
The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act: A U.S. law that effectively bans apps controlled by foreign adversaries such that it can only be avoided if the adversarial control sells its ownership.
The First Amendment: A constitutional stipulation that protects and guarantees free speech for Americans except under specific exceptions.
Content-neutral law: A designation for a law that does not discriminate against specific content that is then considered constitutional.
Content-based regulation: A designation for a law that does not discriminate against specific content that is then considered unconstitutional.
Narrow Legislation: A law that focuses on one specific issue and doesn’t do anything unnecessary.
Divestiture: The process of selling, transferring, or getting rid of a business or other asset.
Extended Summary
In the case of TikTok Inc. v. Garland, the Supreme Court ruled on whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act violated the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. The Act prohibits the use of an app that is controlled by an adversary to the United States, unless that adversary severs ties with the app within 270 days. In effect, TikTok would be banned in 270 days if ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, was unwilling to sell its ownership in TikTok.
However, this Act came under immediate scrutiny as TikTok and it's American users, legally called petitioners, claimed that the Act unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment by taking away a platform for free speech.
On the other hand, the government argued that the Act was justified. Importantly, they claim that the Act was necessary for national security, as ByteDance, under Chinese law, is legally obligated to give the government sensitive user data that includes age, phone number, precise location, internet address, device used, phone contacts, social network connections, the content of private messages sent through the app, and videos watched. The government states that allowing the Chinese government, an adversary, to have access to this data from the 170 million Americans that use the app, could spell disaster. In addition to the massive amounts of data they would be able to obtain, the government also fears that China could use the "For You" page on TikTok, to recommend videos that may spread propaganda.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that, because the ban was content-neutral and not content-based, it held its own against the claims of First Amendment infringement. More specifically, the Court found that because the threat posed by TikTok was so pressing, and the actions against it were so narrow, the Act was warranted. Additionally, the Court contended that because it allowed for the continued operation of TikTok under a non-adversarial government, it was not entirely banning it. Finally, the Court ruled that because the Act is regulating the corporation and not the individual users, it is not directly violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
It is so ordered.
Think of It Like This
Imagine a local pizzeria has a rule that no one can bring in food from outside business that have been known to serve uncooked and potentially dangerous food. The reason for this rule is that the pizzeria is worried the other food might be unsafe. One customer, let’s say TikTok, argues that the rule is unfair because they’ve been bringing in fries from the rival shop across the street for a while, and it goes great with the pizza. They feel it’s their right to choose the food they want, and that the rule interferes with their freedom to serve what they think is best. But the pizzeria explains that it’s not about the fries itself, but it’s about protecting everyone’s safety. The rule applies to all outside food that comes from dangerous sources, no matter how good it tastes or what’s inside, and the pizzeria isn’t banning the chips from TikTok, rather, they’re just asking them to change where they get it from. In the end, the pizzeria says the rule is necessary for everyone’s safety and doesn’t stop customers from enjoying pizza.
Comments