I'm not sure how exactly the First Amendment works, so someone please correct me, but does banning a platform constitute a violation if individuals can choose other platforms?
It's possible to violate free speech rights by banning a platform even when their are alternatives. Most relevantly to this situation, the platform itself is most likely engaging in speech of its own by choosing what to repeat of what other people have said (i.e. it's choice of algorithm). If the platform was being banned for that speech (and that speech didn't happen to fall under an exception) that would be problematic.
It's also clearly possible to ban a platform under other circumstances. For instance banning a platform that was used by various parties for (protected!) speech, but was also being used for money laundering...
TikTok is a complicated case. It is on the edge of banning a platform for protected speech in so much as it is concerned with a US corporations (relevant because speech by non-americans from outside of the US is not protected) choice of recommendation algorithm, except the algorithm is really dictated by a Chinese corporation under the direct influence of the CPP. There are also however very compelling legitimate concerns the government has, such as the CPP's espionage interests, and the CPP's (not-protected, as a foreign government!) influence over TikTok's speech.
It's also notable in this case that the platform is being banned only so long as the foreign adversary refuses to divest. TikTok is free to continue operating in the US, so long as it isn't under China's (an entity without free speech rights) control.
I'd encourage you to read the appeals court ruling for a much more nuanced, and authoritative, take then mine: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/12/24-111...
So, Enron commits a ton of crimes and gets rightfully destroyed. I would be less enthusiastic about Congress passing a law to do the same thing to Ernst and Young despite no criminal proceedings.
I’m surprised that’s surprising.
There's a valid legal argument to be made here either way; that the government has some amount of leeway to censor foreign propaganda, or that the first amendment prevents it from doing so at all.
We'll really just have to wait and see how they rule on it, because the issue will definitely make its way there at some point in the near future.
It's also likely that the verdict won't have a neat and tidy partisan breakdown, so the final result will be hard to predict.
The government makes laws that effects platforms all the time. And Tiktok is perfectly capable of also following the law by doing what the courts have ordered (divest from its ownership basically).