- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,151
- Reaction score
- 941
You may have heard Congress passed a divest-or-ban requirement for TikTok as part of the recent package of bills in last round of foreign aid funding. ByteDance (Tik Tok's parent company) has until Jan 19 to sell TikTok or face a total ban from app stores such as Apple, Google, etc in the United States of America.
The Department of Justice joined by ByteDance as well as TikTok itself and various content creators, asked for and received an fast track schedule for litigation.
TikTok's challenges the ban on constitutional grounds. For example, it infringes on its 1st amendment rights and must be reviewed under the judicial standard of strict scrutiny. In this regard, the Government cannot show it has meet its burden of showing a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring of the restriction. TikTok has won with this argument in the past in other jurisdictions such as the overturned ban in Montana. It argues that if the law is upheld, it would allow the government to decide that a company may no longer own and publish the innovative and unique speech platform it created. Legal brief
I haven't read the Government's legal brief. I suspect it is arguing it does have a compelling state interest from national security and that it is well within the constitutional bounds. I'm sure it will cite the Telecommunications Act Section 310 of the Communications Act which limits foreign investment in broadcast communications. Has anyone here read it and gave it much though?
I will get back to this when we have more time, but I don't see how the Government's argument can stand up to judicial review. It's so broadly written and targets a specific company. But I've been wrong before about how the courts will rule. Let's check again on this when the summer legal briefs coming in around the end of July.
The Department of Justice joined by ByteDance as well as TikTok itself and various content creators, asked for and received an fast track schedule for litigation.
- TikTok and ByteDance must file legal briefs by June 20 and the Justice Department by July 26, with reply briefs due by Aug. 15.
- TikTok and the Justice Department have sought a ruling by Dec. 6 in order to seek review from the Supreme Court if needed.
- Link
TikTok's challenges the ban on constitutional grounds. For example, it infringes on its 1st amendment rights and must be reviewed under the judicial standard of strict scrutiny. In this regard, the Government cannot show it has meet its burden of showing a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring of the restriction. TikTok has won with this argument in the past in other jurisdictions such as the overturned ban in Montana. It argues that if the law is upheld, it would allow the government to decide that a company may no longer own and publish the innovative and unique speech platform it created. Legal brief
I haven't read the Government's legal brief. I suspect it is arguing it does have a compelling state interest from national security and that it is well within the constitutional bounds. I'm sure it will cite the Telecommunications Act Section 310 of the Communications Act which limits foreign investment in broadcast communications. Has anyone here read it and gave it much though?
I will get back to this when we have more time, but I don't see how the Government's argument can stand up to judicial review. It's so broadly written and targets a specific company. But I've been wrong before about how the courts will rule. Let's check again on this when the summer legal briefs coming in around the end of July.