“US Encounters Difficulties in Prohibiting TikTok Due to Security Issues While Ignoring Temu and Comparable Applications”
# TikTok vs. US Government: A Legal Confrontation Regarding National Security and Free Expression
The ongoing legal confrontation between TikTok and the US government has reached a pivotal moment. On September 16, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals conducted oral arguments in the case *TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland*, wherein TikTok, along with its parent company ByteDance and US-based creators, strives to avert a potential ban of the app in the United States. This case holds significant consequences, not only for TikTok’s prospects in the US but also for matters related to national security, free expression, and the extent of governmental oversight.
## The Central Controversy: National Security vs. Free Expression
At the core of the case lies legislation enacted by Congress that targets foreign adversaries, requiring TikTok to separate from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. The U.S. government asserts that TikTok’s ties to China present a considerable national security threat. The concern revolves around the possibility that ByteDance’s oversight of TikTok’s source code, which is updated in China, could enable the Chinese government to access sensitive information from American users and manipulate platform content to sway public discourse.
TikTok’s legal representatives, under the guidance of attorney Andrew J. Pincus, argue that the law is “unprecedented” and could yield “staggering” impacts on free expression, particularly affecting the 170 million Americans who utilize the app. Pincus argued before the three-judge panel that the statute contravenes the First Amendment as it specifically targets a US-based entity—TikTok US—without adequate evidence that the app is being exploited for malicious intent.
## The Government’s Position: A Threat to National Security
The U.S. government, represented by attorney Daniel Tenny, defended the legislation by underscoring the potential dangers posed by TikTok. Tenny claimed that the data collected by TikTok is “extremely valuable to a foreign adversary,” and that ByteDance’s control over the application’s source code opens the door for the Chinese government to manipulate content shown to American users. The government argues that this isn’t merely an issue of free expression, but rather one of national security.
Tenny further asserted that the content on TikTok is not entirely American, as it is influenced by “Chinese engineers in China” who command the app’s algorithms and source code. The government contends that the sole method to alleviate this risk is for ByteDance to divest from TikTok, thus removing any potential Chinese governmental influence.
## TikTok’s Counterargument: Insufficient Evidence and Overreach
TikTok’s defense is built upon the premise that there is no solid evidence bolstering the government’s assertions. Pincus highlighted that the FBI has merely issued alerts regarding the “potential” for the Chinese Communist Party to utilize TikTok for espionage or propaganda, yet there have been no confirmed instances of such behavior. He also criticized the law for being selectively applied, noting that other China-based applications like Temu and Shein, which also gather sensitive data, have not faced similar scrutiny.
Pincus cautioned that if the court validates the law, it could create a perilous precedent, permitting the government to regulate speech across any platform based on foreign ownership. This, he contended, would effectively invert the principles of the First Amendment.
## The Involvement of TikTok Creators
TikTok creators have also entered the legal fray, claiming that the law would impose unfair constraints on their capacity to express themselves and connect with audiences. Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney representing TikTok creators, underscored that TikTok differs from other social media platforms. He emphasized that numerous creators have cultivated substantial followings on TikTok that they cannot replicate elsewhere, such as YouTube or Instagram. Fisher asserted that mandating TikTok’s divestment or closure would fundamentally change the nature of the content and tools available to creators, thus infringing upon their rights to free expression.
Fisher further emphasized the distinctive bond between TikTok creators and their audiences, arguing that Americans possess a “fundamental interest” in selecting the platform for their expressions. He proposed that the law is driven by an intention to suppress expression, making it hard for the government to provide justification under the First Amendment.
## The Court’s Challenge: Balancing Security and Free Expression
Throughout the proceedings, the three-judge panel appeared to wrestle with the intricate issues at stake. On one side, the government maintains a legitimate interest in safeguarding national security, particularly in an age where data holds significant value. Conversely, the court must weigh whether the law disproportionately targets TikTok and its users, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights.
One of the pivotal inquiries posed by the panel pertained to whether the law would remain permissible in wartime conditions. Pincus acknowledged that under wartime circumstances, the government might possess greater latitude to regulate speech,
Read More
