ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, will begin its appeal on Monday against a ruling that would ban the social media platform from the United States if the Chinese company does not sell the rights within nine months. The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, has been justified by the fact that Chinese propaganda can easily spread on the platform, while ByteDance says the ban is a serious infringement on free speech.
Lawyers for the company, which has long denied any ties to the Chinese government, will present their case and evidence to three judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington. In addition to the legal representatives, eight TikTok content creators are challenging the law, who would lose their livelihoods if the platform is banned. They are opposed by lawyers from the federal Justice Department, who fear the Chinese government is spreading propaganda to its 170 million American users.
However, the holding company's commitment to the sale is the United States. It runs counter to the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech, argues Xiangnong Wang, a lawyer at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, among others. He also said we shouldn’t be surprised if authoritarian-led countries set this precedent and limit their citizens’ access to foreign information and media.
We cannot think of any prior decision that has so broadly restricted the First Amendment without sufficient evidence.
Wang said the legislature had not sufficiently supported the new rule. In light of that, the institute got involved in the process because, while it was not involved, it was interested in its results.
In contrast, according to James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, the foundations of the law are solid, and the only question is whether “the court will accept that the forced sale does not impinge on free speech.” Regardless of what they decide, TikTok’s fate will not be decided until months after the ruling, and the parties could go to the Supreme Court, the site wrote. BBC.
