Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States The Courts

TikTok Sues US Government Over Law Forcing Sale or Ban (nytimes.com) 169

Less than two weeks after President Biden signed a bill that will force TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the popular social media app or face a ban in the United States, TikTok said it sued the federal government on Tuesday, arguing the law was unconstitutional. From a report: TikTok said that the law violated the First Amendment by effectively removing an app that millions of Americans use to share their views and communicate freely. It also argued that a divestiture was "simply not possible," especially within the law's 270-day timeline, pointing to difficulties such as Beijing's refusal to sell a key feature that powers TikTok in the United States.

"For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than one billion people worldwide," the company said in the 67-page petition it provided, which initiates the lawsuit. "There is no question: The act will force a shutdown of TikTok by Jan. 19, 2025." TikTok is battling for its survival in the United States, with the fight set to play out primarily in courts over the next few months. While lawmakers who passed the bill have said the app is a national security threat because of its ties to China, the courts must now weigh those concerns against TikTok's argument that a sale or ban would violate the First Amendment free-speech rights of its users and hurt small businesses that owe their livelihood to the platform.

TikTok Sues US Government Over Law Forcing Sale or Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by redmid17 ( 1217076 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:15PM (#64454100)
    If the mere suggestion by a senate committee can force a platform sale: Grindr

    https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
    https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]

    My advice is to suck it up, buttercup, and enjoy the billions you'll bring in from shitty dancing videos and misinformation so fucking dumb it makes flat earthers look sane.
    • by Holi ( 250190 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:42PM (#64454186)

      That's a very different event. Grindr was an American company that was sold to Kunlun, a Chinese company. Kunlun did not submit its acquisition of Grindr for CFIUS review, Which lead the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to request the transaction be reversed. No new laws against Kunlun were created. Nor did we force a Chinese created company to be sold to an American firm.

      Details matter.

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:46PM (#64454206) Homepage Journal
        More basically....IMHO:

        TikTok is a platform...is it not speech.

        Banning TT on the basis of national security, does not, in fact, ban or restrict any US speech....there are plenty of choices out there to use as a platform/public square to post your speech.

        So, this should not be a 1st A case at all.

        platform != speech.

        • by zlives ( 2009072 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:09PM (#64454284)

          the platform is such a national security risk than even china doesn't allow it. why should US. has byte dance sued china?

        • Banning TT on the basis of national security, does not, in fact, ban or restrict any US speech.

          No but it is arguably an act of attainder: finding them guilty of violating national security by passing a law instead of letting the courts decide. I'm no expert on the US consitution but in most democratic countries acts of attainder are generally not allowed.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

            ...inding them guilty of violating national security by passing a law instead of letting the courts decide. I'm no expert on the US consitution

            Ok I'll help you.

            When something is declared a national security threat, it is not something that is done through the courts, never has been.

      • It's not really different at all. Foreign-owned social platform told by government to divest to a non foreign seller for national security reasons. You can church up all the small details however you want, but the government actions about forcing a foreign owned social media platform to divest are 100% identical.
        • Yeah, from a 1st Amendment perspective, I think they're identical.

          The only issue the law may have is mentioning TT/ByteDance by name instead of just letting the president add them to the list. It would be bad if that killed it forever, but it seems like something the SCOTUS could just remove via scalpel.

    • shitty dancing videos and misinformation so fucking dumb it makes flat earthers look sane.

      Ever had a look at this thing on the interwebs called YouTube?

  • by courteaudotbiz ( 1191083 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:19PM (#64454110) Homepage
    I don't understand how a Chinese company, or one that is owned by foreign interests (even if it the company is established in the US) could be covered by the US constitution anyway. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the constitution, it's a health safety issue, and national security issue
    • by drinkmorejava ( 909433 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:28PM (#64454140)
      generally the constitution applies to anyone (or entity) in the country, not just citizens. At any rate, it's laughable that they think the 1st amended protects them from being a national security risk. If they actually read the thing they would understand that defense of the nation *is* one of the few enumerated powers.
      • generally the constitution applies to anyone (or entity) in the country, not just citizens.

        In fact the word entity does not appear in the constitution, only "persons" are covered (and non-citizens still do not have all the same rights in that case).

        The law in question is compelling Bytedance (based in Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands) to put Tiktok under the control of such persons as the constitution pertains to so, so if Tiktok wants to enjoy those constitutional protections they should be quite happy to follow through with the divestment.

        Of course the objection is absurd but ever

      • Getting metadata on normal citizen is not covered under "security risk" and the government can forbid its actor (military and otherwise) to not use tiktok, like they forbid stuff like peloton on military basis. But forbidding it to everybody is clearly not a matter of national security. If it was, they would forbid ALL actors (e.g. facebook, google etc...) to gather data and sell it to everybody which, they do. You can't allow one, but not the other , and call it national security. Forbid it to admin work,
        • by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

          Getting metadata on normal citizen is not covered under "security risk" and the government can forbid its actor (military and otherwise) to not use tiktok, like they forbid stuff like peloton on military basis. But forbidding it to everybody is clearly not a matter of national security. If it was, they would forbid ALL actors (e.g. facebook, google etc...) to gather data and sell it to everybody which, they do.

          There are three things that Tiktok does:
          1. gather data on individuals
          2. gather HUGE amounts of aggregate data, enough to train ML models and discern connections and trends not apparent without millions of datapoints
          3. control the "algorithm" by which broad public opinion on a topic is undetectably influenced

          I think that (2) and (3) are obviously the security risk areas, so I don't know why you chose to only reason about (1).

          • US companies do the same things, to users in other countries around the world.
            And the US government has given itself powers to get access to all that data if it wants.

            The situation of US internet platform companies is symmetrical to the Tiktok situation.

            To be consistent then, all the other countries should ban facebook, google, X, etc.

            That way, we can all have our paranoid nationalisms to ourselves, protected by our walls.

            Right?
        • "forbidding it to everybody is clearly not a matter of national security. If it was, they would forbid ALL actors (e.g. facebook, google etc...) to gather data and sell it to everybody which, they do."

          All national social media services are known to be part of PRISM. They are literally part of the panopticon. Therefore they are essentially defense contractors. What they sell and to whom is probably under a lot more scrutiny than you think. Anyone buying that data and trusting it to be accurate is as dumb as

      • At any rate, it's laughable that they think the 1st amended protects them from being a national security risk.

        Forget the national security risk. Their understanding of the 1st amendment is lacking in general. The fact that a user can voice an opinion on a platform does not protect the platform under 1st amendment rights.

      • generally the constitution applies to anyone (or entity) in the country, not just citizens

        If the US government can detain people without trial and torture them (gitmo), then clearly that doesn't hold. Though this may be the case that people get far fewer protections than companies.

        Anyhooo there seems to be the modern meme that literally anything is speech so the first amendment makes it more or less impossible to pass any laws on anything. Hyperbole... but only a bit.

      • More importantly, I think they missed the part where the Federal government is given explicit control over interstate and international commerce. We can absolutely control whatever enters the US and absolutely control who can do business here from another country. One of the few times where it is not a perversion or twisting of the commerce clause.
    • by Holi ( 250190 )

      You mean the part of the Constitution that says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.". This has nothing to do with the nationality of the country, it has to do with the fact Congress is prohibited from punishing a single entity with a law and bypassing the judicial system.

    • I don't understand how a Chinese company, or one that is owned by foreign interests (even if it the company is established in the US) could be covered by the US constitution anyway

      14th Amendment.

      nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

      It says ANY person. In fact, the sentence before this one indicates citizens and this sentence indicates ANY. So that's always been known to mean, "applies to anyone". So anything happening within the United States isn't deprived of "due process". So a foreign company has the right to ask the court if it has a first amendment right or not. They are allowed "due process" but that doesn't mean that they have every right that say a citizen has. It's an incredibly important difference here.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Regardless of whether TikTok sells their American subsidiary or not, the bill will prevent Americans from accessing a site on the Internet where they currently exercise their right to free speech. It's not TikTok's right to freedom of speech, it's American posters.

      A Montana judge already ruled that Montana's TikTok ban was unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds.

      • Big difference is that Montana is not permitted to regulate interstate commerce. The Federal government is. And this CLEARLY falls under that.
    • I don't understand how a Chinese company, or one that is owned by foreign interests (even if it the company is established in the US) could be covered by the US constitution anyway. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the constitution, it's a health safety issue, and national security issue

      Forcing a breakup for TikTok is similar to individual countries imposing breakups and other harsh conditions for approval of mergers. It's not that the country can control a foreign company. Rather, it's that each country absolutely has the right to control the activities of companies inside that country. ByteDance doesn't have to divest TikTok, but they don't get to refuse and also override US government decisions about regulations in the US. As the Chinese government is fond of saying, this is an inte

  • Partly true... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonadab ( 583620 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @12:27PM (#64454136) Homepage Journal
    > TikTok said that the law violated the First Amendment by effectively removing an
    > app that millions of Americans use to share their views and communicate freely.

    This is absurd. TikTok is one of the most heavily censored communications platforms in existence, and in any case, freedom of speech protects the right of the people to express whatever opinions they want; it does not protect, and has never protected, the right of a foreign government to do business in America as it sees fit. That fundamentally isn't in the first ammendment's wheelhouse, at all.

    However, ...

    > It also argued that a divestiture was "simply not possible,"

    This, however, is certainly true. Bytedance absolutely can't sell TikTok, because they're not a normal company that has the right to sell whatever assets they possess. The creation of Douyin (of which, TikTok is the English-language version) was sponsored and funded by the CCP, and it's a significant strategic asset; they're not under any circumstances going to allow it to be sold to any entity they can't fully control. Imagine if a foreign government demanded that Lockheed Martin sell the F-22 Raptor to a company in their country. They simply don't have the authority to do that. Which, the real purpose of the bill, at least in my view, was to more publicly *expose* the fact that it's the Chinese government, or the Communisty Party, that controls TikTok and will not allow it to be sold. People who have taken the trouble to educate themselves on the matter are already fully aware of this, but a lot of "narrative shaping" has been poured into making sure _most_ people think otherwise. Hopefully, this bill will allow us to lay that question to rest in the minds of a lot more people, as we see Chinese state-run media responding, and doing things like declaring that the app cannot be sold (which is not something you'd expect a government to declare if the app were a normal asset of a normal private company).
    • by Holi ( 250190 )

      Hmm does the constitution prevent a private company from censoring, or does it apply solely to the government?

      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        If the private company is owned and controlled by a government, it's not a private company, it's an arm of that government.

        The Constitution certainly doesn't prohibit the federal government from regulating what foreign governments do in the US.

        • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @05:43PM (#64455112)

          That was exactly my argument against Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram when they came down heavy on "fake news"/non-establishment media during the 2016 election.

          Turns out the FBI and the DNC were directly feeding Twitter (at the least) accounts to censor and ban, amongst other things. Considering they moved in lockstep with Meta, it'd be hard to believe they're not all involved in the same kind of treachery.

    • Imagine if a foreign government demanded that Lockheed Martin sell the F-22 Raptor to a company in their country. They simply don't have the authority to do that.

      They absolutely could, even just seize it by force. Don't put a F-22 Raptor factory in China.

    • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

      > This is absurd. TikTok is one of the most heavily censored communications platforms in existence

      Maybe in China, but not in the US. I can post things on TikTok that would for sure have me banned on Reddit subs. Tiktok is about as free as Twitter but definitely not as free as known cesspools such as 4chan or Slashdot.

      (Slashdot may be full of down voting simps but I've only ever had 1 comment removed in over 20 years.)

      • I can post things on TikTok that would for sure have me banned on Reddit subs.

        Can you give some examples, just curious what your exact experience has been.

        Reddit is also a weird things since so many subs are user moderated, like 9 out of 10 bans are just sub bans which are very subjective and plenty of little fiefdoms. An interesting comparison would be Youtube Shorts.

        • An interesting comparison would be Youtube Shorts.

          Let me just say that YT Shorts sucks balls. I have found if I scroll down even a little bit, whatever "short" I thought I was going to see jumps to something else and there is no way to get the original one back. Every single time.

          Mind you, I don't view shorts on anything resembling a regular basis and have probably only selected four or five, but the condition above has happened with all of them. Can't scroll down or you lose the vid and can't
        • by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          > Can you give some examples, just curious what your exact experience has been.

          On Slashdot I'll get downvotes for asking why someone who had and beat COVID needs a vaccine since they already have antibodies. On Reddit it will get removed, on TikTok it isn't an issue. Sometimes people will flag it but the appeal usually goes through.

          Posting anything positive about Trump stuff outside /r/Wallstreetbets or the the now removed /r/The_Donald may or not get you banned from the sub. TikTok has no issue eith

        • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

          Don't mention certain left wing sacred cows in a negative light and you won't be marked 'troll' or 'overrated', etc. - things like AGW, "green" tech, and similar topics are the usual culprit.

          If you don't worship at that throne, expect a negative response, no matter how diplomatic you are.

      • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        I've had comments downvoted to oblivion -almost immediately-, and always on a very specific topical point of discussion. I've had suspicion for a while that it's not an organic occurrence, and that it's a botted operation to keep certain opinions from gaining visibility.

    • by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

      Maybe so, but it's the only US platform where dissident, non-regime opinions are able to be amplified and shared freely.

      Every other major platform bans dissent.

  • Can people say anything they want on TikTok without getting deplatformed?

    • by Holi ( 250190 )

      Irrelevant argument, The Constitution apples to the government not to companies.
       

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        Which is a dangerous cop-out. When the Constitution was written it inconceivable to have a communications platform like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc. It was incomprehensible that a private entity could wield as much power as the big corporations do today. It was only thought possible for the government to be that powerful and wide-reaching, so that is what was limited.

        • When the Constitution was written it inconceivable to have a communications platform like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.

          Newspapers and book publishers existed when the Constitution was written. Neither is under any obligation to print your letter to the editor or book, respectively.

        • The speech issue is a symptom though and not the root cause. The lines re pretty clear and correct in my opinion on the speech issue. If you own a platform you get to control the content on that platform. If we want to carve out exceptions for these platforms based on their size we need to start from the ground up and define those lines, how do you qantify the "power" of a company in this space, that whole process will also have constitutional questions to answer.

          Where, imo, the government can use it's mu

        • No it's not. The constitution protects your right to speak, it doesn't grant you a right to use a megaphone. The size of the platform is irrelevant.

    • Only the CCP.

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @01:28PM (#64454374)

      Not at all as the platform is heavily censored and regulated. You see the dumb Tiktok lingo leaking into other parts of the internet now. For example the words suicide or kill can't be used so the term unalive was born. You'll also see lots of censored words like P*rn or S*x too.

    • So you are saying is that the USA should follow the worst example ? BTW, the USA has been caught multiple times using US supplied IT equipment to spy on foreign governments.
  • What information have I provided to TikTok - my email, my birthdate, and maybe a couple other items, of non-security value> What information can they gain from my account? They can see that I like to watch crafting/woodworking videos, funny videos, and will sometimes pause enough to watch a few seconds of hot girls in bikinis dancing around. Oh, no, we've already lost WWIII without a shot fired!

    Seriously, though, our country (United States) has no real laws for data brokers or website date security -
    • by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
      they can use your location data to determine you work in a sensitive industry and push spyware to your phone in an update
  • ... of the court". They are banned from China for "national security" reasons.

  • Abuse of power by the government against ANYONE is bad. It is run in America on American servers. Just being owned by a chinese parent company does not make it a threat. As any american platform they are allowed to moderate as they see fit. While it would also be 'good' if TikTok were forced to be an open platform, that is just not what free speech in America means.
  • Interesting. So I guess the U.S. based social media companies that are currently banned in China by the CCP can now sue same? Turnaround is fair play, no?

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      companies that are currently banned in China by the CCP can now sue same?

      Yeah. In a Chinese court. Let's see how that works out.

  • The US government can only be sued if it agrees to allow itself to be sued. That is a well established law. Might even be in the Constitution. Congress already spoke; this is the end of the negotiations for this toxic, garbage app.
  • Here's Massie explaining this bill is a Trojan horse that bans a lot more than TikTok [twitter.com].

    Let's say you don't like TikTok, maybe you don't like that people can freely post Israel's atrocities in Gaza there. So maybe you support this bill. But you also don't like Trump. Do you think Trump should have the power to decide what apps are 'controlled by foreign adversaries' and should be banned? Or, if you happen to like Trump AND Biden, do you trust all future presidents not to abuse this power?

  • in VPN sales, if this ban goes through.

    The kids will have their toys.
  • "TikTok said that the law violated the First Amendment" - A CCP controlled company using the 1st amendment to sue us. Stop this suit cold in its tracks now to send a message to those communist asshats.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein

Working...