The two countries, locked in a major clash at the Supreme Court over the measures that led to TikTok's shutdown, delivered written closing arguments on Friday about China's influence over the site and the role the First Amendment should play in evaluating the law. They fought fiercely.
Their briefs, filed on an unusually shortened schedule set by the justices last month, are a high-stakes decision over the government's bid for TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to sell or shut down the app's U.S. operations. It was part of the showdown. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a special session next Friday to resolve the case by the legal deadline of Jan. 19.
A court ruling, likely to be issued this month, will decide the fate of a powerful and widespread cultural phenomenon that uses sophisticated algorithms to serve users a series of short, personalized videos. TikTok has become a major source of information and entertainment, especially for the younger generation.
“Rarely have the courts brought a free speech case that matters to so many people,” said a brief filed Friday on behalf of a group of TikTok users. “170 million Americans regularly use TikTok to communicate, be entertained, and follow news and current events. will lose access to billions of videos.
The brief makes only a passing mention of President-elect Donald J. Trump's unusual request last week for the Supreme Court to temporarily block the law so he can address the issue once he takes office. It was.
The legal deadline for TikTok to be sold or shut down is January 19, the day before Trump's inauguration.
“This unfortunate timing makes it difficult for President Trump to save the social media platforms that control U.S. foreign policy, protect national security, and provide a popular outlet for 170 million Americans,” his brief said. “It hinders our ability to pursue solutions.” To exercise core First Amendment rights. ”
The law allows the president to extend the deadline by 90 days in limited circumstances. However, this provision does not appear to apply because it requires the president to certify to Congress that significant progress has been made toward a sale backed by “relevant binding legal agreements.” is.
TikTok's brief emphasized that the First Amendment protects Americans' access to the speech of foreign adversaries, even if it is propaganda. They write that an alternative to outright censorship is a legal requirement to identify the source of speech.
TikTok's brief states, “Disclosure is the most restrictive and proven method to address concerns that the public is misled about the origin or nature of speech received, including in foreign affairs and national security contexts.” “It is a less expensive alternative.”
This point was also reflected in the user's brief. “To the extent our custom and case law permit, disclosure of foreign influence is a requirement so that citizens have sufficient information to decide what to believe,” the report said. “I can do it,” he said.
The government said that approach would not work. “Such general and permanent disclosure would clearly be ineffective,” U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger wrote Friday.
In a brief filed last week in TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656, the government said it can address foreign propaganda without violating the Constitution.
“The First Amendment would not have required us to tolerate Soviet ownership and control of American radio stations (or other communications channels or critical infrastructure) during the Cold War,” the brief said. states. Today, TikTok is owned and controlled by foreign adversaries. ”
User briefs disputed that statement. “In fact, the United States had allowed the publication of Pravda, a classic Soviet propaganda tool, in this country at the height of the Cold War,” the brief said.
TikTok itself argued that it was wrong to blame the government for not “outright denying” claims that ByteDance censored and manipulated content on its platform at the direction of the Chinese government.
TikTok's brief says that censorship is a “heavy term.” In any case, the brief added, “The petitioners flatly deny that TikTok has removed or restricted content from other countries in response to China's requests.”
