Attorneys representing TikTok and content creators have argued that a law requiring the Chinese parent company, Bytedance, to divest from its U.S. subsidiary should be scrutinized under the First Amendment.
In a recent hearing, a three-judge panel raised questions about TikTok’s claim that the law violated the First Amendment. They pointed out that the law was aimed at a foreign adversary, rather than individuals challenging it on free speech grounds.
The Department of Justice has contended that ByteDance’s reliance on a proprietary algorithm based in China could potentially be exploited by a foreign adversary, justifying the divestment requirement.
During the proceedings, attorney Andrew Pincus, representing TikTok, highlighted the ownership of multiple media outlets by foreign entities. However, Judge Neomi Rao emphasized that the focus was on foreign adversaries specifically.
The lawsuit originated from Congress’s decision to compel ByteDance to divest from TikTok in the U.S. or cease operations in the country. TikTok initiated legal action, arguing that the law was unprecedented and lacked clarity in its rationale.
The legal debate also touched on the application of First Amendment principles to social media companies, drawing parallels to recent Supreme Court cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinions were referenced, particularly regarding foreign ownership of corporations and the complexities it introduces.
DOJ attorney Daniel Tenny countered arguments about First Amendment infringements on TikTok users, citing legal precedents and emphasizing the national security concerns related to foreign control of social media platforms.
In light of these discussions, the case underscores the intersection of national security, free speech, and foreign ownership in the digital age.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
