Few surprises emerged in the Supreme Court arguments over the Protecting Americans Act, which demands that ByteDance, the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated owner of TikTok, either divest from the social media platform or face a ban.
The case hinges on whether TikTok can convince Justices that such a mandate violates the First Amendment by forcing a foreign-controlled app to sell or shut down. As of Friday, they have not — and the Court has compelled Tik-Tok to be sold or shuttered this weekend.
Bipartisan skepticism voiced by Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Ketanji Brown Jackson suggests TikTok’s odds of winning look as shaky as a viral dance routine.
This legislation, as noted by my colleague Ilya Shapiro, regulates foreign control of platforms, not the content they host. It’s an established mechanism to safeguard Americans from foreign manipulation.
However, just because the anti-TikTok legislation is legal doesn’t necessarily make it wise. As we debate the app’s future, we must also grapple with an uncomfortable truth: despite its Chinese Communist ties, TikTok became an unlikely bastion of free speech during the 2024 election season — in sharp contrast to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the New York Post
______________________
Tim Rosenberger is a legal fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Mimi St Johns is a Stanford-educated blockchain entrepreneur.
Photo by Anthony Kwan/Getty Images