Some lawmakers are advocating for President Joe Biden and the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the potential ban of TikTok, emphasizing that such a move would compromise the free speech rights of millions of Americans. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding a law that would compel TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest its U.S. operations by January 19, or face a ban on the popular app.
Senator Ed Markey from Massachusetts has announced plans to introduce legislation to extend the deadline by an additional 270 days. He argues that a ban would disrupt vibrant online communities and affect the livelihoods of numerous content creators in the United States. Currently, TikTok boasts around 170 million American users, and critics of the ban contend it violates First Amendment protections.
Lawmakers express concerns that the app poses national security threats, particularly regarding the potential for data collection by the Chinese government. However, bipartisan support is growing against the ban, with lawmakers suggesting that alternative measures could effectively address data security concerns without infringing on constitutional rights.
In an effort to stave off the ban, Markey has collaborated with lawmakers from both parties to submit a brief to the Supreme Court presenting arguments against the TikTok restriction. Representative Ro Khanna highlighted that the ban could dismantle a unique and creative ecosystem relied on by many.
Additionally, there are indications that a possible buyer for TikTok’s U.S. assets could materialize. Project Liberty, an organization led by billionaire Frank McCourt, has formally approached ByteDance with a proposal, having secured up to $20 billion in commitments for the acquisition. Notably, if the sale proceeds, it would involve U.S. operations but not the algorithm, which is considered China’s intellectual property.
The Supreme Court’s decision is anticipated to have significant repercussions, determining not just TikTok’s future in the U.S. but also the broader implications for digital privacy and free expression. Lawmakers and stakeholders remain hopeful that a resolution can be reached that upholds constitutional rights while addressing legitimate national security concerns.