getty imagesThe future of a divestment or ban law for TikTok now rests in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court following a three-hour hearing ahead of the social media platform’s looming deadline.
On Friday, the court’s nine justices heard from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators and the U.S. government about whether a law calling for a ban in the U.S. unless sold by parent company ByteDance threatens free speech.
Appearing on the platform, former US Attorney General Noel Francisco emphasized that the ban would undermine the constitutional rights of some 170 million US users.
Representatives of platform creators argued that they should be free to use publishers of their choice.
But the government urged the judges to uphold the law passed by parliament last year.
We passed a bill against TikTok with support from both Democrats and Republicans. It was the culmination of years of concerns about the popular platform, known for its viral videos and traction among young people.
ByteDance must sell TikTok in the U.S. or cease operations on January 19.
On Friday, Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth B Prelogar argued in court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government pose a national security risk.
She told the court that China “could weaponize TikTok to harm the United States at any time.”
She later said that warning TikTok users alone would not be enough to address concerns about relations with China and would not adequately address national security concerns.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr. Francisco tried to make the case that “the government cannot restrict speech to protect us from speech.”
“That’s what this law does from beginning to end.”
But his claims have drawn scrutiny from the Justice Department, and the justices have returned time and time again to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh took a closer look at concerns raised by the U.S. government about what data the app collects about users and how that data may be used.
He said there were risks involved that seemed like “big concerns for the future of the country”.
trump question
Last December, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to postpone the ruling Until he returns to the White House so that he can seek “political solutions” to solve the problems at hand.
TikTok’s lawyer told the court Friday that in his view the platform would “go dark” on January 19 without intervention.
Ms Prelogar, defending the US Department of Justice, said “nothing permanent” happened that day and there was still time to sell.
Forcing the app to be disabled could be a “shock” that would force ByteDance to seriously consider selling it, she said.
“It would fundamentally change the landscape in terms of what ByteDance might consider,” she said, comparing the situation to a “game of chicken” and one in which the U.S. “shouldn’t blink in the first place.”
The judges will now consider their decision. A ruling is expected to be issued in the next few days.
More than 100 people attended the hearing in person despite the cold weather in Washington, DC.
UC San Diego student Danielle Ballesteros said she had been waiting outside the courthouse since 6:30 a.m. local time.
“I don’t think TikTok deserves to be banned,” she told BBC News.
While she admits she uses the app “probably too much,” she said she believes it will become an important news source for her generation.
The bill passed by Congress does not ban the use of the app, but requires tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop providing the app and ban updates, which analysts suggest will cause the app to disappear over time.
The US claims TikTok is a “serious” threat. That’s because the Chinese government could force owner ByteDance to hand over user data or manipulate what it shows users to benefit China.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence from the Chinese Communist Party and said the law violates users’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
TikTok has already been banned from government devices in many countries, including the UK. Some countries, including India, have more complete bans.
Last December, Three judges ruled in the appeals court upholding the law.He cited China’s record of acting through private companies and said the move was justified as “part of a broader effort to counter the well-documented national security threats posed by the country.”
Stanford University law professor Jeffrey L Fisher, who represents creators suing against the law, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign enemies.”
But he said that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not pose a threat to national security.
