TikTok's 'Staggering' Consequences: A Battle for Free Speech in the US

The US divest-or-ban law, signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year, has sent shockwaves through the social media world, with TikTok at the center of the controversy. The law, which requires TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent, ByteDance, by January 19, 2025, has sparked a heated debate about national security and free speech. But what would be the actual consequences of such a law? According to Andrew Pincus, a partner at Mayer Brown representing TikTok, the impact would be "staggering" for free speech. By targeting a specific US speaker, the law would impose an extraordinary speech prohibition based on indeterminate future risks. Pincus argues that the government has not come close to proving the constitutionality of the law, and that remedies such as forcing the disclosure of any potential propaganda found on TikTok should be explored instead of a full ban. However, one judge suggested that TikTok is taking a "blinkered view" by arguing that the statute is singling out a specific company, when in fact it is targeting those owned by foreign adversaries. Another judge questioned why TikTok's lawyer was asking the court to require Congress to provide more findings to support the law, given that it has already been passed. So, what's at stake here? The fate of a fast-growing app that has exploded in popularity to challenge Meta's Instagram and Google's YouTube. TikTok has become a vital tool in the US election, allowing campaigns to reach young voters directly. But what about the national security concerns? Daniel Tenny, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, argued that ByteDance maintains and develops TikTok's recommendation engine, and that its data could be extremely valuable to a foreign adversary. But isn't this just a case of the government trying to control what we see online? The US government's evidence is classified, meaning it cannot be seen by TikTok, on the basis that sharing it could cause serious harm to national security. This raises important questions about transparency and accountability. What if this assumption is wrong? What if the US government is overreacting to a perceived threat? What might the author of the law have missed? These are the kinds of questions that we should be asking ourselves as we consider the implications of this law.