Lawyers representing TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are drawing comparisons between their clients and American news outlets such as Politico and Business Insider in an effort to challenge a potential ban or forced sale of the app. This significant development occurred on August 15th.
The legal battle stems from a law signed by President Joe Biden earlier this year, which initiated a countdown to January 2023. By that time, ByteDance must sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company or face a ban in the United States. In response, ByteDance swiftly took legal action, arguing that the law violated their First Amendment rights and was unconstitutional.
However, a federal court ruled against ByteDance’s claims and deemed the new law constitutional. The court determined that the government had the authority to impose restrictions on TikTok due to national security concerns. Consequently, plans for banning or forcing the sale of the app are still proceeding.
Legal experts have emphasized the significance of this ruling within an increasingly complex landscape for major tech companies. They have underscored that platforms like TikTok must recognize distinctions between social media platforms and traditional news outlets.
Douglas E. Lee, a law professor at the University of California, stated: “It’s a recognition on the part of courts that social media platforms…are essentially different and may be treated differently for First Amendment purposes.”
To bolster their case, lawyers representing TikTok and ByteDance compared their clients to news organizations by highlighting shared characteristics such as information dissemination and editorial decision-making. Their aim was to challenge singling out TikTok for potential adverse actions by questioning its constitutionality.
Nevertheless, legal analysts stress that despite these comparisons it is crucial to differentiate between social media platforms and news outlets. News organizations typically bear greater responsibility in adhering to journalistic principles and ethical standards compared to social media platforms with varying levels of content moderation.
Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas remarked: “It wouldn’t be very hard…to distinguish between a news organization that carefully follows editorial norms and TikTok where there is no routine editing at all.”
While this ruling represents a setback for TikTok and ByteDance in their legal battle, it raises fundamental questions about governmental authority over regulating social media platforms as well as potential conflicts between national security interests and constitutional rights.