TikTok's First Amendment Battle: National Security vs. Free Speech

The First Amendment's freedom of speech faces a tough challenge from national security concerns over TikTok's influence.

### The First Amendment vs. National Security: The TikTok Dilemma
* 🗣 The core of TikTok's argument rests on the **First Amendment**, asserting that the law **infringes upon the freedom of speech** for its **170 million users** in the United States.
* ⚖ This case presents a complex challenge as it juxtaposes the **right to free expression** against the U.S. government's claims of an **unprecedented national security threat** posed by TikTok.
* 🤝 Bipartisan support for the law highlights lawmakers' willingness to **act against voter preferences** when faced with significant threats, as seen by **overwhelming votes from both Democrats and Republicans**.
* 🔍 The Justice Department has put forth compelling arguments regarding TikTok's potential risks, but much of the evidence remains **classified**, leaving the public in the **dark about the specifics**.
* 📅 The timeline for a decision is uncertain, but it is expected to **unfold shortly after the upcoming elections**, raising questions about the evolving focus of lawmakers on **data security**.
* ⚠ Regardless of the outcome, the case sets a **significant precedent for future government actions** concerning technology and media platforms, potentially leading to **abuses of power**.
* 📜 The courts will need to balance the **First Amendment rights** against national security interests, with the government facing a **high bar to prove its case** under strict scrutiny standards.
* 💼 TikTok's lobbying efforts to prevent the law were largely ineffective, reflecting the **challenges foreign companies face in influencing U.S. policy** compared to domestic tech firms that may **support the ban**.

The heart of the argument from TikTok is the First Amendment that the law impinges upon the freedom of speech of TikTok to 170 million or so users in the United States. How successful is that argument going to be? We'll find out. And this is a tough case. On the one side, you have a First Amendment right of free expression, which the courts are likely. They don't like to circumscribe that narrowly. They're going to give that a broader. At the same time, you have what the U.S. government is say is a unique security threat that has unprecedented reach and depth. So you have strong arguments on both sides, and everyone's watching to see which way to come out. Doug, we the three of us have discussed this before, and we will discuss it again. Why does the political engine not take into account more the wishes of the user base, the 170 million Americans who like

using Tik Tok? It's very difficult for lawmakers to go against the will of the voters, but it happens when there's a serious enough threat that they're willing to reach across the aisle, hold hands, and do something difficult together. When this law was passed, you saw Democrats and Republicans in both chambers vote for it. Overwhelming numbers, which gives everyone cover. It's very difficult to criticize one party when the other party is doing it just as much. Do you think it will be justified in banning? I don't know. I think this is a very difficult case to predict. It's, you know, people have said we're in uncharted territory here. It seems like the First Amendment questions are very profound. At the same time, the Justice Department has laid out what many believe are very compelling reasons that Tic Tac is a threat to national security. Of course, a lot of its justification is done in classified filings that we as

the public do not have access to. Tick tock its own lawyer. Do we have access to this? So much of this will be decided behind closed doors by the judges and the U.S. government. And we'll find out what happens shortly after the election if they hear the timeline. Talking of timeline, it feels like things have changed quite a lot since last we spoke. The furor around it has died down. And I'm wondering more broadly whether you think the focus from lawmakers is is odd and whether that data will be as proven out from a security threat perspective and whether a ban would fix that. So prior to passing the law, the executive branch and Congress gathered a great deal of information and the filings lay this out. There's testimony from a lot of national security officials, a lot of public reporting about some of the links between Tock and the Chinese Communist Party. And it made the case that the question is whether the First Amendment permits

this type of really draconian restrictions. This is an unprecedented action by the US government against a media outlet. But they're saying that the facts of this case are unique. I think we know enough about the facts, notwithstanding the classified filings, to have a sense of really what the stakes are here. But no matter which way the case comes out, people are going to be unhappy. I think even if the government proves its case and they find that national security reasons are strong enough to justify the action. There's a precedent that's going to be set for what the federal government can do with regard to technology and platforms that a lot of people can be worried about and could possibly be abused by the government in the future. It's often said that tough cases make bad law and that maybe what happens here. Doug is a student of the law. I love this bit, but the courts will balance the freedom of speech argument.

against the national security interest argument. This is what the DOJ says: give and take talks broad reach within the United States. The capacity for China to use TikTok's features to achieve its overarching objective to undermine American interests creates a national security threat of immense depth and scale. How difficult or not will it be for the US to prove that national security threat? So it depends on what legal standard the court employs. There's different levels of scrutiny, how closely they look at the government's motivations and justifications. If they apply what's called strict scrutiny, the bar is quite high and the government has to show that there's a really compelling government interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to meet that aim. They go to great lengths in their briefing to try to lay out the case, but it is a high bar. And again, this is a case that is so unique that the precedents that are on point don't seem quite right. We know that the government can prevent

foreign ownership of radio and television companies, but they do that under the licence authority. They have much more restricted powers when it comes to print sources. So is tick tock more like a print source or is it more like a radio or television station? It's only different. And that's what the court is going to have to contend with. Just briefly, we've heard, of course, from tick Tock, the argument remains the same. This ban would devastate 7 million businesses. They also took the 170 million Americans that Ed already referenced. You understand the world of lobbying. Having worked in that world previously. What will it be like behind the scenes? So what's interesting about the effort, the lobbying effort before the bill was passed was that tick tock put a lot of money and resources and effort into trying to prevent a law from passing, and it was entirely ineffective. Now we can talk about tactics, and they

took some steps that people believe backfired. But it seems more important, the fact that it is a foreign company and fundamentally foreign-owned entities have different rights under the U.S. Constitution. They are restricted in some methods they can use to lobby. And there's a lot of U.S. tech companies that don't love TikTok and would be quite happy to see it go away. And they also have their own lobbyists. So it goes both ways.

TikTok Battles US Ban at Appeals Court

Welcome to the Bloomberg Technology YouTube channel. Subscribe for original series and mini-docs on game-changing technologies, profiles on innovators, live conversations with experts, and breaking technology news & analysis from Bloomberg TV.

Bloomberg Technology

TikTok's First Amendment Argument and Its Challenges

TikTok is arguing that the law impinges on its First Amendment right to free speech for its 170 million U.

The case presents strong arguments on both sides, with the government citing a unique security threat posed by TikTok.

The bipartisan support for the law's passage indicates a serious concern, making it difficult to predict the outcome of the case.

The Controversy Surrounding TikTok's Legal Issues

TikTok's legal battles are being decided behind closed doors, with the U.

The focus on TikTok's data and its alleged links to the Chinese Communist Party has raised concerns about national security.

The unprecedented action against a media outlet raises questions about the government's power over technology and platforms, potentially setting a concerning precedent for the future.

The DOJ claims that TikTok's features give China the capacity to undermine American interests, creating a significant national security threat.

The difficulty of proving this threat in court depends on the legal standard applied, with strict scrutiny posing a high bar for the government.

TikTok argues that a ban would devastate 7 million businesses and has made significant lobbying efforts to prevent the law from passing, but these efforts have been ineffective.

TikTok's foreign ownership gives it different rights under the U.

Constitution, restricting its lobbying methods.

tech companies that oppose TikTok are also using their own lobbyists to influence its presence.

The competition and tension between TikTok and these tech companies contribute to the platform's challenges in the U.