틱톡의 수정헌법 제1조 논쟁: 국가 안보 대 언론의 자유

### 수정헌법 제1조 대 국가 안보: 틱톡의 딜레마
* 🗣 틱톡의 주장의 핵심은 수정헌법 제1조에 근거하여 **이 법이 미국 내 1억 7천만 명의 사용자의 언론의 자유를 침해**한다고 주장하고 있습니다.
* ⚖ 이 사건은 **표현의 자유에 대한 권리**와 **틱톡이 전례 없는 국가 안보 위협**을 초래했다는 미국 정부의 주장이 병치되어 있어 복잡한 문제를 야기합니다.
* 🤝 이 법에 대한 초당적인 지지는 민주당과 공화당 모두의 압도적인 표결에서 볼 수 있듯이 **심각한 위협에 직면했을 때 유권자의 선호에 반하는 행동**을 하겠다는 의원들의 의지를 보여줍니다.
* 🔍 법무부는 틱톡의 잠재적 위험성에 대해 **설득력 있는 주장**을 펼쳤지만, 많은 증거가 기밀로 남아 있어 대중은 구체적인 내용을 알 수 없습니다.
* 📅 결정 일정은 불확실하지만 **다가오는 선거 직후에 발표될 것**으로 예상되며, 데이터 보안에 대한 의원들의 관심이 높아지는 것에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있습니다.
* ⚠ 결과에 관계없이 이 사건은 향후 기술 및 미디어 플랫폼과 관련된 정부의 조치에 **중요한 선례**가 될 것이며, 잠재적으로 **권력 남용**을 초래할 수 있습니다.
* 📜 법원은 수정헌법 제1조 권리와 국가 안보 이익의 균형을 맞춰야 하며, **정부는 엄격한 조사 기준에 따라 사건을 입증해야 하는 높은 기준**에 직면하게 됩니다.
* 💼 이 법안을 막기 위한 틱톡의 로비 활동은 대체로 효과가 없었는데, 이는 **금지령을 지지할 수 있는 국내 기술 기업**에 비해 **외국 기업이 미국 정책에 영향을 미치는 데 어려움**을 겪고 있음을 반영합니다.

수정헌법 제1조의 언론의 자유는 TikTok의 영향력에 대한 국가 안보 우려로 인해 어려운 도전에 직면해 있습니다.

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

틱톡의 수정헌법 제1조 논쟁과 그 과제

TikTok은 이 법이 1억 7천만 명의 미국 사용자들의 언론의 자유에 대한 수정헌법 제1조를 침해한다고 주장하고 있습니다.

이 소송은 양측의 주장이 팽팽하게 맞서고 있으며, 정부는 TikTok이 제기하는 독특한 보안 위협을 언급하고 있습니다.

법안 통과에 대한 초당적인 지지는 심각한 우려를 나타내며 소송의 결과를 예측하기 어렵게 만들고 있습니다.

틱톡의 법적 문제를 둘러싼 논란

미국 정부가 중요한 역할을 담당하고 있는 TikTok의 법적 공방은 비공식으로 진행되고 있습니다.

TikTok의 데이터와 중국 공산당과의 연관성에 대한 의혹이 집중되면서 국가 안보에 대한 우려가 커지고 있습니다.

미디어 매체에 대한 전례 없는 조치는 기술과 플랫폼에 대한 정부의 권한에 대한 의문을 제기하며 향후 우려스러운 선례가 될 수 있습니다.

미 법무부는 틱톡의 기능으로 인해 중국이 미국의 이익을 훼손할 수 있는 능력을 갖게 되어 심각한 국가 안보 위협을 초래한다고 주장합니다.

법정에서 이러한 위협을 입증하는 것은 적용되는 법적 기준에 따라 어렵고, 엄격한 조사는 정부에 높은 기준을 제시합니다.

틱톡은 금지 법안이 통과되면 700만 개의 비즈니스가 피해를 입을 것이라고 주장하며 법안 통과를 막기 위해 상당한 로비 활동을 벌였지만, 이러한 노력은 효과가 없었습니다.

틱톡은 외국인이 소유하고 있기 때문에 미국 헌법에 따라 다른 권리를 가지며, 로비 활동에도 제한을 받습니다.

틱톡에 반대하는 미국 기술 기업들도 자체 로비스트를 통해 틱톡의 입지에 영향을 미치고 있습니다.

틱톡과 이러한 기술 기업 간의 경쟁과 긴장은 미국에서 플랫폼이 겪는 어려움의 원인이 되고 있습니다.