By Jesus Garcia
Dec 18, 2024, 11:31 AM EST
On January 10, Supreme Court to hear arguments on TikTok banafter a law that requires its closure unless the platform is sold.
The emergency request was made by users in the United States of that platformwho ask the Supreme Court to block the law that would prevent its operation in the country if the company does not sell such a video social network.
TikTok and its parent company ByteDance also joined the motion.which has until January 19 to sell the company or close the platform.
The response of the Supreme Court justices was to a 41-page presentation on how the law passed by Congress could shut down “one of the most popular speech platforms in the United States the day before a presidential inauguration” of the president-elect Donald Trump.
The emergency request came three days after the appeals court for Washington rejected the request to suspend the law, to give TikTok time to request a Supreme Court review.
The appeals judges considered that the owners of the platform, which is claimed to be owned by a company from China, were only seeking to delay a decision endorsed by Congress and enacted by President Joe Biden.
Last April, congressmen and even intelligence agencies, such as the FBI, indicated that TikTok could represent a danger to national security, arguing links to the Chinese government, although no evidence was presented in this regard.
In an effort to keep the platform operating, TikTok CEO Shou Chew visited President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Friends of the Court for Civil Rights
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an ‘amicus curiae’ or friend-of-the-court brief in support of an emergency motion before the Supreme Court in favor of TikTok.
“The Constitution sets an extraordinarily high bar for this type of massive censorship“said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.
The argument of the ‘amicus curiae’ maintains that the decision of the District and Appeals courts on the law against TikTok “did not fully address the law’s profound implications for First Amendment rights”.
It is cited that more than 170 million Americans use TikTok and their right to freedom of expression could be violated.
“The government should not be able to restrict freedom of expression, especially to the extent it does in this case, based on conjecture about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, director of civil liberties at the EFF.
Keep reading:
• Appeals court rejects stopping law that would prohibit TikTok from being available in the US.
• House of Representatives approves law against TikTok in the United States
• Trump could become TikTok’s greatest ally to avoid the veto in the United States