Wall Street Journal: TikTok’s Bad Free-Speech Case
By The Editorial Board
.....On Monday the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in TikTok v. Garland, but the company’s theory of the case didn’t get many likes. “TikTok Inc. is a U.S. entity,” said its lawyer, Andrew Pincus, so “the speech here that’s being banned, we would say, or at the minimum burdened, is the speech of a U.S. speaker.”
Its content moderation, he said, “occurs within the United States,” and “the government is not arguing that there’s a sham here.” He presented the law as an “unprecedented” effort to ban the speech of 170 million U.S. users.
But Congress didn’t restrict speakers on TikTok. What’s really at issue is Chinese control of the app, and TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company. TikTok is welcome to keep operating and its users to keep posting. The law merely says TikTok cannot do so while remaining what Congress calls a “foreign adversary controlled application.”
The D.C. Circuit’s panel grasped this distinction. Judge Douglas Ginsburg wanted to know “why this is any different, from a constitutional point of view, than the statute precluding foreign ownership of a broadcasting license?” Good question.
Ed. note: Listen to full oral arguments here.
|