The two sides in the momentous Supreme Court showdown over a move that could shut down TikTok presented their final written arguments on Friday, sharply questioning China's influence over the site and the role the First Amendment should play in assessing the law.
Their briefs, filed on an exceptionally abbreviated schedule set last month by the judges, were part of a high-stakes showdown over the government's insistence that ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, sell the app's U.S. operations. or close it. The Supreme Court, in an effort to resolve the case before the Jan. 19 deadline, will hear arguments in a special session next Friday.
The court's ruling, which could come this month, will decide the fate of a powerful and ubiquitous cultural phenomenon that uses a sophisticated algorithm to feed users a personalized array of short videos. TikTok has become, especially for younger generations, a leading source of information and entertainment.
“Rarely, if ever, has the court faced a free speech case that matters to so many people,” a brief presented on Friday he said on behalf of a group of TikTok users. “170 million Americans regularly use TikTok to communicate, entertain themselves, and follow news and current events. If the government prevails here, users in the United States will lose access to the platform's billions of videos.”
The writings made only oblique or oblique references to President-elect Donald J. Trump's decision. unusual request last week that the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the law so he can address the issue once he takes office.
The statutory deadline to sell or shut down TikTok is Jan. 19, the day before Trump's inauguration.
“This unfortunate timing,” their report said, “interferes with President Trump's ability to manage United States foreign policy and seek a resolution to protect national security and save a social media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million of Americans. to exercise their fundamental First Amendment rights.”
The law allows the president to extend the deadline by 90 days in limited circumstances. But that provision does not appear to apply, as it requires the president to certify to Congress that there has been significant progress toward a sale supported by “relevant binding legal agreements.”
TikTok Overview He stressed that the First Amendment protects Americans' access to the speech of foreign adversaries even if it is propaganda. The alternative to outright censorship, they wrote, is a legal requirement that the source of speech be disclosed.
“Disclosure is the least restrictive and time-tested alternative to address concerns that the public is being misled about the source or nature of received speech, including in foreign affairs and national security contexts,” the report said. TikTok.
The user report echoed this point. “The most our customs and jurisprudence allow,” he said, “is the requirement to disclose foreign influence, so that people have complete information to decide what to believe.”
The government said that approach would not work. “Such a generic and permanent disclosure would be patently ineffective,” said Elizabeth B. Prelogar, attorney general of the United States. wrote on Friday.
In a brief filed last week in the TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government said foreign propaganda can be addressed without violating the Constitution.
“The First Amendment would not have required our nation to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communication channels and critical infrastructure) during the Cold War,” the report said, “nor does it require us to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of TikTok by a foreign adversary today.”
The users' brief disputed that claim. “In fact,” the brief said, “the United States tolerated the publication of Pravda – the prototypical tool of Soviet propaganda – in this country at the height of the Cold War.”
TikTok itself said the government was wrong to blame it for not “outright denying” a claim that “ByteDance has practiced censorship or manipulated content on its platforms at the direction” of the Chinese government.
Censorship is “a loaded term,” the TikTok report said. In any case, the brief adds, “the petitioners flatly deny that TikTok has removed or restricted content in other countries at the request of China.”
