This is about who controls the network, not the content on the network.
There is a law that only U.S. citizens can own TV stations. That's why Murdoch became a US citizen (allowing him to buy Fox). This is in a similar vein.
US Congresspeople and Senators were angry that TikTok would not censor or de-emphasize pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli content, whereas Facebook much more actively de-boosted that kind of content. All previous attempts to ban TikTok failed to gain traction, until the Gaza war began, and that issue convinced many politicians in the US to back a ban.
What would be interesting though - on all platforms, what's the organic percentage of the different view points, and whats the percentage that ends up being shown to people. I think that's what people are worried about being quietly manipulated. So even a small amount of people with some extreme view point would get promoted because China wants it, but since it's real content, it's not really obvious that it's being pushed.
I'm totally pro-TikTok btw I just don't really buy the idea that it was about this specific content.
The communications act did not ban already-existing networks, and it did not ban specific providers. The tiktok ban is targeted specifically against one social media that the government does not like[1], with a thin veneer of "security concern" that people might specifically choose to share their contact list and that one of those contacts may be in a sensitive position.
[1] I don't even really think it's about the government not liking it! They thought they could get cheap support by drumming up anti-chinese sentiment and they ran with it. It's the most pathetic kind of politicking.
no, it's about the ownership and control of the social media network by a foreign country (that is adversarial to the US)
the other major social networks are all US companies
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/eff-statement-us-supre...
It's not like any interpretation is valid but there are plenty of valid ones.
And of course it makes sense, because the legal system was created by the very laws it upholds. If you think it should be different, then you'll have to convince a lot of people to change a lot of laws and probably parts of the US constitution
It does, because the Supreme Court's ruling is the legally binding interpretation.
The EFF are just some people with an non-legally binding opinions.
Another extreme, let's say the government declared that you may speak freely but only by filling out a web form routed to Dave. Great guy. I mean they haven't technically taken away your right to speak? And someone will hear what you say.
Both of these would he flagrant violations of 1A as I'm sure you'd agree. But what this means is that implicit to 1A the government has limits on how many places it can deny you speech and limits on how much they can deny you an audience. And you can't hide behind the "well it's just divestiture not a ban" because the courts aren't blind to POSIWID.
So the more nuanced question is does banning TikTok meaningfully affect the ability of Americans to speak. And I think because of how large they are you could answer yes to this question. Americans know exactly what they're signing up for with their TT accounts and want to post there. TikTok but owned by an American would be legal so the platform itself isn't the issue. And saying TT can't operate in the US and actively preventing Americans from accessing it are two very different actions.
This argument touches on the more valid defense for TikTok: restricting which people can host speech is a good way to restrict content, by punishing those who tend who host certain kinds of content. Personally, I'm okay with requiring a US company control TikTok in the US for national security reasons, but I would've preferred the law go through strict scrutiny. Laws can restrict what would usually be Constitutionally protected rights as long as they have good reasons and little room for collateral damage. If what Congress has been claiming is true, this law should pass that standard.
The Constitution does not place limits on which people are protected by it (you don't have to be a citizen for it to apply as the founders were looking to limit the powers of their government not their citizens). And with the expansion of those protections to corporations through Citizens United, I'd be surprised if a court found that `company + foreign != person + foreign` when they've decided `company == person`. (Well not surprised by this Court.)
> The law also does not censor content (so no free speech violation anyway). The law simply bans the distribution of the app on marketplaces stores for reasons stated (national security). Big difference.
The rest of your comment still stands right in my eyes. National Security has often been used as a means to bypass many things enshrined by the Constitution.
What they did find was that (real, human) people have certain rights that they are able to exercise by organizing into corporations.
That 1 USC §1 is not a typo: this copy appears in the first section of the first title of US code, on disambiguating common terms used in law.
> The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
SCOTUS held that coorporations (and more broadly "associations of people") have the same rights to free speech that any individual does.
The point you and others try to make is that corporations are people as a result of CU and so other human rights apply to them. This is backwards. SCOTUS and lower courts basically established that free speech applies to corporations same as individuals. But it did not establish their personhood. This is exactly equivalent to saying that a corporation has to pay taxes like a person. It does not make it a person.
So what people get wrong is they say “if a corporation is a person then it gets to do X”. Thats incorrect, nobody except talking heads on TV called it a person. Similarly “if a corporation has the right to free speech it has the right to do X” is incorrect. Having one right does not confer all rights. Again think of it as the idea of corporations get to pay taxes. People get to pay taxes. This did not make corporations people and did not confer any other rights onto corporations.
This isn’t to say that it was the right decision (certainly seems to have done some very bad things). But “corporations are people” is a lay person talking point, not an actual legal doctrine. Therefore you can’t just apply it to other cases because there is nothing to apply.
You are correct that free speech isn’t limited by your citizenship status.
This is red alert talk. We need to make damned sure we know exactly what we're asking for here and that we're not giving up more than we mean to.
What specific speech do you think is no longer allowed?
Justice Sotomayor disagrees with you [1]:
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She stressed that she saw “no reason to assume without deciding that the Act implicates the First Amendment because our precedent leaves no doubt that it does.”
The rest of the justices sidestepped the question by assuming the First Amendment was implicated for the sake of argument.
[1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tik...
I think it is very obvious why removing the most-used social media from 170 million americans would be burdensome. SCOTUS disagrees.
The TikTok ban was specifically prompted by Congresspeople being upset about pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli speech on the platform.
Also, more directly for those in the back, the actual first amendment:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment doesn't guarantee the speaker a venue for their speech. You're still free to say whatever you want to say, so long as it doesn't cross any other laws, in or on whatever other private venues or town squares you so choose.
To turn your question around, rather than spending time defending TikTok I wish people would spend time thinking about the need for actual privacy laws. The kind of laws that outline data governance and the extents to which an individual can expect their individual privacy to be respected. Maybe then we can play less whack a mole with invasive and potentially harmful social software.
"The issue in the United States for support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old. And the numbers of young people who think that Hamas' massacre was justified is shockingly and terrifyingly odd. And so we really have a TikTok problem."
"[TikTok] is like Al Jazeera on steroids."
- Jonathan Gleenblat, ADL.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelCrimes/comments/1i3vwll/we_ha...
Something very appalling has just taken place in the USA. Old people have muzzled the free speech of young people. Americans spend more hours on TikTok than on television (but it mostly skews to young people), and now it's been taken away.
This isn't a conspiracy, the ADL openly admits and is proud of their involvement in censorship.
Here they are bragging about their role in youtube censorship:
https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-applauds-goo...
Google search results censorship:
https://www.adl.org/resources/news/can-google-search-be-used...
X may be the one exception, though I note that the "advertiser boycott" was ended when Musk made trips to Israel, was photographed next Netanyahu's atrocity propaganda prop pieces, next to Ben Shapiro, etc.
Musk went from antisemite to Israel fan in the course of just a few days. This actually isn't so surprising, though. There are many people who are both antisemitic and pro-Israel (see basically every far-right party in Europe, for example).
Publishing is speech (Bernstein vs United States).
Unpublishing the app would avoid the effects of the Act.