Social media company TikTok has officially filed its opening brief in federal court to oppose the Congressional ban on its platform if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not sell the app to an American tech company. The lengthy document argues that TikTok is popular, that Congress’ definition of “foreign adversary controlled application” is vague, and that the act violates the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
“TikTok is an innovative online platform used by 170 million Americans,” the text reads. “All that will end on January 19, 2025, when the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) will ban TikTok throughout the country. The Act is unprecedented. Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum. Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act.”
The brief also argues that the Act “does not advance a compelling or significant interest,” is “underinclusive,” “is not narrowly tailored,” and argues that the court should declare the act is unconstitutional.
Learn the benefits of becoming a Valuetainment Member and subscribe today!
As Valuetainment reported on April 24th, President Joe Biden signed the bill into law that will ban TikTok unless ByteDance sells it to an American company this year. The app is officially banned from US government phones due to its ability to collect data and potentially send it to the Chinese government. National security concerns about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) collecting data is the primary reason behind the bill, which was originally named “the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”
TikTok responded by suing the US government on May 7th, alleging that the new act violates constitutional protections.
“For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban,” representatives of TikTok wrote in the lawsuit, “and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide.” They also wrote the ban is an “unprecedented violation” of the First Amendment.
The suit further argues that speech should not be restricted on the grounds of national security, and that the federal government must prove such a restriction is legitimated and warranted—but so far has not. It also called on Congress to provide proof that TikTok is a data security risk or that it poses a threat to spread foreign propaganda. Finally, it argues the ban violates the Constitutional right to due process as provided by the Fifth Amendment, characterizing the ban as the declaration of a crime without a judicial proceeding.
As Valuetainment previously reported, one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), was accused of insider trading after buying loads of stock in TikTok’s competitor Meta ahead of the ban. According to FinBold, McCaul bought $350,000 worth of Meta stock on April 4th and 5th. McCaul is a big-time investor in Meta, having invested at least $700,000 in the past.
Shane Devine is a writer covering politics and business for VT and a regular guest on The Unusual Suspects. Follow Shane’s work here.
Add comment