U.S. Supreme Court leans toward banning TikTok over security concerns

The Supreme Court appears ready to uphold a law banning TikTok in the United States over national security concerns unless its Chinese parent sells the platform before a January 19 deadline.

The court's nine judges heard from lawyers and content creators representing TikTok, saying the ban would violate free speech protections for the platform's more than 170 million users in the United States.

The U.S. government has argued that if not sold, TikTok could be used by China as a tool for espionage and political manipulation.

The Supreme Court must decide within days. President-elect Donald Trump, who returned to the White House after more than a week, now opposes the ban.

The law requires TikTok's parent company ByteDance to sell or cease operations in the United States on January 19. The company said it would not sell the short video platform.

Congress passed the law with support from both Democrats and Republicans, a moment that marks the culmination of years of concerns about the wildly popular platform, known for its viral videos and appeal among young people. And famous.

The legislation does not ban the use of the app, but would require tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering the app and ban updates, which analysts believe will kill the app over time.

TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence from the Chinese Communist Party and said the law violated users' First Amendment rights to free speech.

Former US Deputy Attorney General Noel Francisco, who has appeared on the platform, stressed that a ban on Americans' most popular speech platform could also open the door to dangerous forms of censorship.

He argued that “the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech.”

“That's exactly what this law does from beginning to end.”

Representatives of the platform’s creators believe they should be free to use publishers of their choice.

Jeffrey L Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who represents creators sued over the law, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced “ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries.”

But he said mere thoughts do not constitute a national security threat under the First Amendment.

Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth B Prelogar told the court that ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government make it a national security risk.

She told the court that Beijing “could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States.”

During nearly three hours of arguments, the nine justices returned again and again to the national security concerns that initially prompted the law, while also exploring free speech issues.

“Should we ignore the fact that ultimately the parent is actually going to do intelligence work for the Chinese government?” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked TikTok lawyer Mr. Francisco.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh delved into the concerns raised by the U.S. government about the user data the app collects and how it is used.

He said the risks appeared to be “huge concerns for the future of the country”.

In December, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump Urges court to delay ruling Until he returns to the White House, allowing him to seek a “political solution” to the problem at hand.

TikTok's lawyer told the court on Friday that in his view the platform would “shut down” on January 19 without intervention.

Ms. Preloga, speaking for the U.S. Department of Justice, said “nothing permanent will happen” that day and that there is still time for a sale to take place.

She said forcing the app's removal might be just the “shock” ByteDance needs to seriously consider a sale.

“This will fundamentally change the landscape that ByteDance may consider,” she said. She likened the situation to a “coward’s game” and that the United States should not “blink first.”

After the hearing, legal observers predicted that the Supreme Court justices appeared to be swayed by the administration's concerns.

“Traditionally, when national security is at stake, the Supreme Court has been willing to delay proceedings to a certain extent,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

“I expect the majority of judges will side with the government,” he added.

Jacob Hubert, an attorney representing Internet content creators and president of the Liberal Justice Center BASED Politics, said it's difficult to predict how the court will rule.

But he said the ban would infringe on the free speech rights of millions of Americans — a point he believes TikTok's lawyers have actually made.

“This has nothing to do with China's rights or the Communist Party's rights,” he said. “This is about the right of Americans who use TikTok to largely converse with other Americans.”

More than a hundred people in Washington, D.C., braved freezing temperatures to attend the hearing in person.

Chloe Joy Sexton, one of the TikTok creators named in the lawsuit, said the platform has brought “financial independence” to many creators, including many mothers.

“A TikTok ban would put these women, myself included, in real financial danger,” she told reporters. “This will destroy my business and the community that means so much to me.”

Danielle Ballesteros, a student at the University of California, San Diego, said she had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.

“I don't think TikTok should be banned,” she told BBC News.

While she acknowledged using it “probably too much,” she said she believed the app was an important news source for her generation.

TikTok has been banned from government devices in many countries, including the UK. It faces a more comprehensive ban in some countries, including India.

Last December, a Three-judge Court of Appeal decision upholds lawpointed to China’s record of taking action through private companies and said the measure was justified and “part of a broader effort to address the well-documented national security threat posed by the country.”