Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

The Supreme Court Should Save TikTok

by January 7, 2025
January 7, 2025
The Supreme Court Should Save TikTok

Thomas A. Berry

In April 2024, President Biden signed an unprecedented law that required TikTok to either “divest” from its parent company ByteDance by January 19, 2025, or cease operations in the United States. Such divestment would likely be infeasible because ByteDance owns much of TikTok’s code and employs many of the engineers who make TikTok run. And even if it were feasible, American TikTok users would lose access to content from outside the country, fundamentally changing the platform.

The law contained an unusual provision requiring that any legal challenges be brought directly in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, bypassing the federal district courts. Pursuant to that requirement, three suits were brought in the DC Circuit challenging the law, one by TikTok itself and two by various TikTok users.

A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit upheld the law against these challenges, and now the Supreme Court has taken the cases on a fast-track timeline, with oral arguments scheduled for this Friday, January 10 (just nine days before the law’s deadline). Cato has filed an amicus brief urging the court to strike down the law as a First Amendment violation.

In our brief, we address two justifications for the law that were repeatedly invoked by lawmakers: that TikTok is a platform for “propaganda” and that it is a platform for “misinformation” and “disinformation.” As our brief explains, neither of these arguments can justify the law because there is no First Amendment exception for either “propaganda” or false speech.

The TikTok divestment bill is not the first time Congress has enacted a bill infringing on speech rights to combat foreign “propaganda.” In the 1960s, members of Congress used strikingly similar rhetoric to that used by lawmakers today when they passed a similar bill. That 1960s law mandated screening of incoming foreign mail for “Communist political propaganda.” If a government official determined that a piece of mail contained such propaganda, it would only be delivered if its intended recipient promptly returned a form affirmatively requesting its delivery.

The Supreme Court rightly struck down this “Communist propaganda” law in the case Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965). As the court explained, the “Communist propaganda” law was “at war with the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment.” As the court later reaffirmed in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” 

If the government disagrees with speech that it views as harmful “propaganda,” the government can use its own voice to rebut that speech. But the government does not have the power to censor or burden disfavored views. It is up to the people to decide which ideas win out.

Nor can the government justify censorship on the grounds that it is merely fighting falsehoods. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court struck down a law criminalizing false claims of winning a military medal. Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that “our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” Instead, “the remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.” 

Placing the power to arbitrate the truth in the hands of the government would be dangerous, both because government officials make mistakes and because they can be motivated to suppress disfavored speakers, using falsehoods only as a pretext. Such motivation may well have been behind Congress’s choice to single out TikTok and not address other social media sites with comparable levels of “misinformation.”

As our brief notes, non-content-based concerns over hacking and data-tracking could hypothetically justify government action against a platform. But the government has not proffered public evidence that meets the burden necessary to support this justification either. Our brief urges the Court to subject the law’s supposed justifications to more rigorous scrutiny than did the DC Circuit panel below. 

Congress has plainly targeted TikTok because of the viewpoints it carries (or that it is perceived to carry). That is a core First Amendment violation, and the Supreme Court should block the law from taking effect.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Conservatives rejoice over ‘jaw dropping’ Meta censorship announcement: ‘Huge win for free speech’
next post
The Black Market Beckons: Biden’s Last-Minute Move on Nicotine

You may also like

The Brazilian Judiciary’s Continued Censorship and the Brussels-Brasilia...

August 19, 2024

A TikTok Ban Passes, But the Courts Are...

April 24, 2024

Taiwan Arms Backlog, July 2024 Update

August 5, 2024

Obama, Biden Have Mislead More Health Insurance Purchasers...

July 31, 2023

Inflation Has Been Coming Down So Fed’s Rate...

June 15, 2023

Memo to Congress: Before Acting on FISA, Get...

February 9, 2024

The Blockchain Integrity Act: Latest Attempt to Restrict...

May 9, 2024

Polling Shows the President’s Tariffs Are Unpopular, Sentiment...

April 29, 2025

The US Food Trade Deficit Is Nothing to...

April 15, 2025

Biden Didn’t Cause the Border Crisis, Part 3: Would...

January 16, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Trump warns of ‘serious consequences’ if Elon Musk funds Democrats

      June 7, 2025
    • Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful Bill after Schiff’s praise

      June 7, 2025
    • Musk deletes explosive posts about Trump and Epstein files

      June 7, 2025
    • House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed him during hearing with unearthed tweet: ‘Iceberg is ahead’

      June 7, 2025
    • Call with China’s Xi, and Trump-Musk exchange fueled barbs during 20th week in office

      June 7, 2025
    • Trump’s conservative allies warn Congress faces critical ‘test’ with $9.4B spending cut proposal

      June 7, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,152)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,568)
    • Stocks (3,136)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved