The Supreme Court of USA This Friday, January 10, he leaned towards supporting the law that could close the social network TikTok in the country if it is not separated from its parent company, the Chinese ByteDance, very soon, before January 19, as stipulated by the rule.
The High Court held a hearing today, at the request of the platform, which lasted about 3 hours, to study whether the law goes against the First Amendment of the US Constitution (which includes freedom of expression), as TikTok alleges. ; or, on the contrary, the protection of national security prevails against possible interference by the Chinese Government, as defended by the federal Administration.
“The law only addresses this foreign company (ByteDance), which does not have First Amendment rights,” said progressive Justice Kagan.
The rule, approved by Congress last April 2024 by Democrats and Republicans, gave ByteDance nine months to find an investor from a country that is not considered an “adversary” of the United States to sell its operations.
After passing all the judicial phases in other courts and they did not rule in his favor, TikTok creators and the company asked the High Court to review the constitutionality of the law.
In addition, they alleged that the fact that the law came into effect on Joe Biden’s last day as president of the country, before the Republican Donald Trump be inaugurated on the 20th, made the idea of, at least, postponing the ban “especially appropriate.”
During the first part of the hearing, in which the platform’s lawyer and another representing content creators participated, the magistrates focused the debate on the power that the Chinese government has with TikTok.
In fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh replied to TikTok’s lawyer, who asked to respect freedom of expressionwhich China Through the social network he could “develop spies and convert and blackmail” young Americans.
“The concern is that they are regulating a media outlet,” added Justice John Roberts.
For his part, Noel Francisco, representative of TikTok defended that the rule meant opening the door to censorship and that it went against the freedom of expression of the company and users.
“You couldn’t go to CNN or Fox News and tell them: ‘We’re going to regulate you because you’re manipulating content in a way we don’t like…’,” he said.
One of the options proposed by the magistrates was to give the platform more time to separate itself from its parent company so that TikTok can continue operating in the country, but it did not convince the defense: “It would be excessively difficult in any period.”
Prosecutor Elizabeth Prelogar explained that the data collection and manipulation of content that, she claimed, TikTok does, are threats to national security.
And although some magistrates showed some skepticism about his arguments about the manipulation of content, Prelogar stated that the data collection evidence is already sufficient for the Court to support the law.
Given the deadlines, the Supreme Court acted with unusual speed in this case, so it is expected that it will be able to quickly decide what to do with the rule and later issue a more extensive opinion.
If the court ends up approving the federal rule, TikTok will turn off on January 19, since the creators warned that if ByteDance loses the trial, they will close the platform.
The future president of the country, Donald Trump, who tried to ban the social network during his first term (2017-2021), asked the Supreme Court to paralyze the entry into force of the law until he was in office.
The Republican, who during the election campaign said he would “save TikTok”, has met with TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, at his residence in Mar-a-Lago (Florida), according to some media reports.
*Stay up to date with the news, join our WhatsApp channel
In case you are interested: WMO reveals that 2024 was the warmest year ever recorded
OF
