TikTok and ByteDance sue US government over forced sale, claim free-speech violations

[midian182]

What just happened? TikTok and its owner ByteDance have sued the US government to stop a bill passed last month that will force the sale of the app or ban it in the United States. The companies argue that the bill is unconstitutional and violates free speech rights.

A lawsuit filed by TikTok and ByteDance in the court of appeals for the District of Columbia calls the law an "unprecedented violation" of the First Amendment. The companies add that the requirement to divest TikTok to avoid a nationwide ban is not commercially, legally, or technically possible, partly because it would lead to the app operating in isolation from the rest of the world – most of TikTok's one billion users are outside of the US.

"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 1 billion people worldwide," ByteDance claims.

Many government and industry insiders, including former White House Chief Information Officer (CIO) Theresa Payton, previously said that ByteDance would never sell TikTok no matter the consequences. The Chinese owner confirmed this in the suit.

"There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere," the suit said.

Also confirmed in the lawsuit were the previous reports that ByteDance would not sell TikTok without its recommendation algorithm, which China added to its export control list in 2020 after then-President Donald Trump tried to force a sale.

The Chinese government "has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States."

ByteDance wants the law to be declared an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, adding that national security concerns are not sufficient reason to restrict free speech. It adds that the government has not proven such a restriction is warranted.

The free speech argument has saved TikTok before. The company sued Montana last year when the state tried to ban the app claiming First Amendment violations. A judge agreed with the company, but Montana's Attorney General is trying to overturn the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.

A group of lawmakers announced in March the bill that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok or see the app banned. President Biden signed the bill into law last month, giving ByteDance 270 days to comply, meaning a ban could come into effect on January 19, 2025, though Biden could extend the deadline to sell by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress.

TikTok started Project Texas in 2022, designed to protect US users' data from its Chinese parent company. But former employees say the project is "largely cosmetic" and current staff continue to work closely with Beijing-based ByteDance executives.

TikTok could eventually face another legal battle, this one in Europe. The European Commission, which was the very first institution to ban TikTok on its corporate smartphones, hasn't ruled out following the US in implementing a widespread ban.

Permalink to story:

TikTok and ByteDance sue US government over forced sale, claim free-speech violations

 

[Endymio]

The Chinese government "has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States."

The CCP's statement is rather clear proof of why such a ban is both necessary and appropriate. Even ignoring the already-demonstrated national security concerns, there is the fact that the Chinese government's involvement in TikTok represents an illegal (under US law) subsidization of competition.

Also important to note that TikTok isn't allowed in China itself -- instead, a much more restricted app called Douyin is instead offered by ByteDance.

 

[Dimitriid]

ByteDance is not wrong: It is a very clear free speech violation specially given the official reasons for the decision, National Security concerns when no concerns are raised by others like Meta doing the exact same thing, gathering metadata on citizens, except cooperating with US agencies instead of the CCP.

They'll still lose in court if not get the case outright dismissed and let me make it clear: ByteDance should lose as the CCP is quite hypocritical in this regard, but given the suppression we've seen of the pro-Palestine student protests I don't think most Americans should hold on to the fallacy of championing free speech themselves without cleaning house first: Your Government just flat out does not respect that right at all. Admitting as much doesn't puts you on the same level as the CCP at all as the propaganda and methods of shaping public opinion on the US are far more subtle and restrained (For now at least) but still holding on to those empty values, ironically enough, means you'll actually lose those rights pragmatically or even effectively far more quickly.

 

[Endymio]

ByteDance is not wrong: It is a very clear free speech violation specially given the official reasons for the decision, National Security concerns when no concerns are raised by others like Meta doing the exact same thing, gathering metadata on citizens, except cooperating with US agencies instead of the CCP.

What sort of anti-logic is this? You believe that giving data to the US government should be a national security concern for the US government? Come again?

Furthermore, Meta is not "doing the exact same thing" as TikTok, which has shown to have backdoors to gather not only real-time location data, but to collect video, audio, and communications on the device.

 

[yRaz]

ByteDance is not wrong: It is a very clear free speech violation specially given the official reasons for the decision, National Security concerns when no concerns are raised by others like Meta doing the exact same thing, gathering metadata on citizens, except cooperating with US agencies instead of the CCP.

They'll still lose in court if not get the case outright dismissed and let me make it clear: ByteDance should lose as the CCP is quite hypocritical in this regard, but given the suppression we've seen of the pro-Palestine student protests I don't think most Americans should hold on to the fallacy of championing free speech themselves without cleaning house first: Your Government just flat out does not respect that right at all. Admitting as much doesn't puts you on the same level as the CCP at all as the propaganda and methods of shaping public opinion on the US are far more subtle and restrained (For now at least) but still holding on to those empty values, ironically enough, means you'll actually lose those rights pragmatically or even effectively far more quickly.

The stuff people are posting on tiktok is freespeech, spying on private citizens by a foreign adversary is not protected under freespeech. If you want to spy on private citizens you have to be the US government.

 

[The Talking Tech]

Since when is it "Free Speech" funneling American citizens data to China?

 

[Endymio]

Since when is it "Free Speech" funneling American citizens data to China?

They meant to say "free intel". Something got lost in translation from the Chinese original.

 

[The Talking Tech]

ByteDance is not wrong: It is a very clear free speech violation specially given the official reasons for the decision, National Security concerns when no concerns are raised by others like Meta doing the exact same thing, gathering metadata on citizens, except cooperating with US agencies instead of the CCP.

They'll still lose in court if not get the case outright dismissed and let me make it clear: ByteDance should lose as the CCP is quite hypocritical in this regard, but given the suppression we've seen of the pro-Palestine student protests I don't think most Americans should hold on to the fallacy of championing free speech themselves without cleaning house first: Your Government just flat out does not respect that right at all. Admitting as much doesn't puts you on the same level as the CCP at all as the propaganda and methods of shaping public opinion on the US are far more subtle and restrained (For now at least) but still holding on to those empty values, ironically enough, means you'll actually lose those rights pragmatically or even effectively far more quickly.

There's a big difference when META sells your information let's say to Ford about your preferences in automobiles vs TikTok funneling American citizens data to China.

If you can't see the difference then you have a huge issue with your moral compass.

 

[yRaz]

I think this is how they plan to end the "free Palestine" protests. Because of their tik tok brain, zoomers will start protesting the ban instead of Isreal and forget about everything

 

[maxxcool7421]

The CCP's statement is rather clear proof of why such a ban is both necessary and appropriate. Even ignoring the already-demonstrated national security concerns, there is the fact that the Chinese government's involvement in TikTok represents an illegal (under US law) subsidization of competition.

Also important to note that TikTok isn't allowed in China itself -- instead, a much more restricted app called Douyin is instead offered by ByteDance.

YUP just like facebook and instagram

 

[maxxcool7421]

ByteDance is not wrong: It is a very clear free speech violation specially given the official reasons for the decision, National Security concerns when no concerns are raised by others like Meta doing the exact same thing, gathering metadata on citizens, except cooperating with US agencies instead of the CCP.

They'll still lose in court if not get the case outright dismissed and let me make it clear: ByteDance should lose as the CCP is quite hypocritical in this regard, but given the suppression we've seen of the pro-Palestine student protests I don't think most Americans should hold on to the fallacy of championing free speech themselves without cleaning house first: Your Government just flat out does not respect that right at all. Admitting as much doesn't puts you on the same level as the CCP at all as the propaganda and methods of shaping public opinion on the US are far more subtle and restrained (For now at least) but still holding on to those empty values, ironically enough, means you'll actually lose those rights pragmatically or even effectively far more quickly.

transmitting data to a country is not free speach /end

 

[Uncle Al]

They've taken a page out of the Trump playbook .... but I don't think it will delay the action ......

 

[Neatfeatguy]

"There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere," the suit said.

So there are no other platforms people can upload their short videos to for others to view?

I didn't know that tiktok was the only social media platform that allowed people to upload their short videos to. I guess you can't do something like that on youtube or facebook or snapchat or instagram or a handful of others that I'm too lazy to post.

What a stupid and frivolous law suit to base your case on. There is no silencing of freedom of speech. The company is just upset they will be losing out on a large population base that currently uses the platform and that means a lot less money, plain and simple.

People haven't lost their freedom of speech (or dance or ignorance), they can take their crap to other platforms and let their stupidity reign down on those foolish enough to lap it up.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

"adding that national security concerns are not sufficient reason to restrict free speech. It adds that the government has not proven such a restriction is warranted"

Would they say this to the CCP if they wanted to do something against CCP ideology? Chinese Government has seat on Bytedance Board.

 

[Dimitriid]

There's a big difference when META sells your information let's say to Ford about your preferences in automobiles vs TikTok funneling American citizens data to China.

If you can't see the difference then you have a huge issue with your moral compass.

I understand your points but I feel they're fundamentally incomplete: Meta doesn't just collects data to sell to ford: read up on 'Cambridge Analytica' a little bit to expand on this but they can and already have used their metadata for targeted political means not just advertising.

Second point and perhaps more important is that you are assuming there's only 2 countries that matter at play here: China and the US. Truth is Meta has untolds amount of data for people living outside the US and there's not a single indication that they would limit their collaboration with either US agencies directly or third party actors to just 'US citizens' meaning that outside of China that blocks Facebook entirely, every single other country in the world has to deal with the fact that the US can access their citizen's data (If they haven't already).

Meaning that again, we just need to find/replace the country names to see how most countries around the world can use the exact same rhetoric the US is using to ban Facebook completely outside of the US.

So again it's difficult for me to 'see the difference' when you intentionally paint a diminished picture of stuff that we know Meta is capable of and that's just one example out of the many US based companies that already possess vast amounts of data we know can be useful for means other than just advertising.

The only difference is that nobody can see how the US having access to Meta which in turn possesses valuable data on pretty much the rest of the world isn't a big deal but once a single Chinese company gets one over on the US, playing the exact same game they have been playing for years it's 'not the same thing'

 

[hahahanoobs]

Free speech and social media.
What a time to be alive.

 

[ExReey]

Lol how the **** is shutting down TikTok a violation of free speech?
Did we not have free speech in the 90s because we didn't have Tiktok?
This is not the same as shutting down a news paper, where the owner controls the contents; Bytedance doesn't produce the contents so shutting them down doesn't violate any speech at all.
And Tiktok users have tons of similar apps to produce their "free speech".

I guess the Bytedance CEO actually ment 'free money" instead of "free speech".

 

[Freddie159]

They've taken a page out of the Trump playbook .... but I don't think it will delay the action ......

Furthermore they may not even have the ability to sue because right now nothings changed, it's just something that 'might' change. We have a major election coming up in November, so before the 12 months date to shutdown tik tok, and everything could change based on who wins.