TikTok tried on Monday, September 16, to convince a US federal court of the unconstitutionality of the law that forces its Chinese owner to sell it, in front of prudent judges.
Since the law was passed by the US Congress in April, the fate of the social network, accused of allowing Chinese authorities to improperly collect the data of American users, has become a major issue in the political debate. The law, signed into law by President Joe Biden, stipulates that if parent company ByteDance has not sold TikTok by January 19, 2025, the platform will be banned on US territory.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, for his part, opposes any ban on the popular platform, after having tried to ban it himself in 2020, at the end of his term.
Freedom of expression under debate
ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, has said it has no intention of selling its valuable app. Therefore, going to court is its only option to survive in the United States.
“This law is unprecedented”said TikTok lawyer Andrew Pincus at the opening. “For the first time, Congress has expressly targeted a U.S. agency”He added, referring to TikTok USA, the group’s subsidiary in the United States. This last argument did not seem to convince the judges, who recalled that the group had a majority Chinese shareholder and cited abundant case law on groups or organisations banned in the past.
The District of Columbia judges also questioned US Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny on whether the ban on the platform violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. Tenny responded that since TikTok is controlled by a Chinese company, the protection of freedom of expression as defined by US law could not be applied to it.
“After hearing the initial submissions, I am convinced that this case will end up before the Supreme Court”commented Sarah Kreps, a professor at Cornell University, quoted by Agence France-Presse. “The judges seemed skeptical of TikTok’s arguments.noticed. But they also raised important questions about the First Amendment and foreign influence (…) to which no clear answers have been given. »
“Empty shell”
TikTok claims that “The Constitution is on our side”and added that the law would silence the voices of 170 million Americans. “There is no doubt that the law will lead to the closure of TikTok before January 19, 2025”The company argues in its appeal, “silencing those who use the platform to communicate in a way that cannot be replicated anywhere else”. TikTok also argued that even if divestment were possible, the app “It would always be reduced to an empty shell, lacking innovative technology that adapts content to each user”.
The US government says the law is about national security issues, not freedom of expression, and that ByteDance cannot exercise constitutionally protected rights. The US believes ByteDance may have to comply with Chinese government requests for data on US users. US authorities also claim that the group is subject to pressure to censor or promote certain content on the platform. TikTok denies these allegations.
Former President Donald Trump’s 2020 executive orders to ban TikTok were blocked by a federal judge, who cited arguably exaggerated reasons and a potential violation of the right to free speech. The Republican billionaire, very angry at Meta (Facebook, Instagram) and the other major platforms that temporarily banned him for inciting violence following the assault on the Capitol in 2021, has since changed his position. “Everyone who wants to save TikTok in the United States, vote for Trump”he said in a video posted last week.
