The U.S. ban on TikTok was argued against in court

Can We Stop the TikTok app, or Can We Just Give Up on the Right Way to Make a Deal with China? A Comment on Pincus

Andrew Pincus argued that if the government wanted to ban TikTok, it needed to prove that they had exhausted all their other methods of dealing and that they had a compelling reason for doing so. The government failed both tests, he said.

Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on a behalf of a group of creator plaintiffs, said that upholding the law could ultimately lead to other limits on Americans’ ability to produce for other media companies with foreign owners, from Politico to Spotify to the BBC. The government has a lot of justifications for its content manipulation, including some concerns about the war in Gaza.

The DC Circuit is an appeals court that tends to deal with cases involving federal agencies. The fact that the bill is an act of Congress, rather an agency action, was not lost on the judges. Rao told TikTok’s counsel Andrew Pincus that Congress is “not the EPA” and doesn’t have to enact findings like an agency — their findings are borne out by the fact they were able to pass the law. Later, Rao said that many of Pincus’ arguments sounded like he wants the panel to treat Congress “like an agency.”

The Chinese government could use the video app TikTok to amplify its view of the world, according to some in Washington. The misuse of American data by the Chinese government has raised more concerns.

Before the deal could be finalized, a number of China hawks in the White House demanded that the developers sell the app to a non- Chinese company, or be banned from the U.S.

Why did Congress pass the U.S. ban in court? A counterexample to the tiktok-users-court argument

I know Congress doesn’t legislate all the time, but they did here. They actually passed a law. And many of your arguments want us to treat them like they’re an agency.”

The court’s decision on whether or not it passed the law will be based upon whether or not congress has established a legitimate national security threat. The question is whether that security risk is enough to justify speech restrictions.

It is possible that ByteDance one day tries to turn Americans against the U.S., by manipulating its algorithm to boost pro-China videos, according to Tenny.

“Absolutely, yes,” Fisher replied. Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, and Swedish-owned streaming service Spotify are among the news organizations we have an interest in working with.

Federal appeals judge Neomi Rao, asked Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer representing TikTok creators if TikTokkers have a First Amendment interest in who exactly owns the platform?

A big difference, said Srinivasan, is that Politico and Business Insider are not owned by a foreign adversary. He said the company that owns TikTok is based in China.

Source: TikTok argued against its U.S. ban in court today. Here’s what happened

Getting Tik Tok in the U.S. Against the Decay of a Social Network Appearing as a Tortua

The Justice Department asked the judges to make a ruling by December. Whatever the ruling, it can be appealed to a full-panel of the federal appeals court. After that, either side can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

President Biden’s administration is defending the law banning TikTok that Congress passed. After he was in the White House, Donald Trump tried to shut down the app but now supports its existence in the U.S.

It was not easy to gauge the court’s stance in the important legal saga that is the most dire-yet challenge TikTok has faced.