The TikTok Case Could Open the Floodgates to More Corporate Influence on the Media

The Supreme Court will hold a two-hour extended special oral argument on the emergency motion on Thursday (January 10). The problem before them is Impending forced sale Use of TikTok in the United States is constitutional.

But the case is about much more than whether the United States should allow Chinese-controlled TikTok to operate in the United States. It is about the nature of corporate speech rights and national sovereignty. Even if you disagree with Biden’s arguments regarding TikTok, you shouldn’t support the court striking down the law. You should support saying nothing, even though this court may give you a little reason to feel good about corporate speech rights.

That’s because there’s a real possibility that the court will reject TikTok’s specific claims, but it still gives Big Tech companies a chance to write social media rights in a comprehensive First Amendment clause. Because it can give you a roadmap to protect yourself from regulation.

The emergency petition, filed by TikTok, asks the court to temporarily block enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Control Applications Act (PAFACA). Signed last April, PAFACA identifies China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea as “foreign adversaries” and leverages the existing framework to ban apps controlled by such countries from being used in the United States. I am doing it. Barring court intervention, ByteDance, which is owned by the Chinese government, will have until January 19 to sell TikTok.

TikTok’s constitutional argument is based on corporate speech rights litigation. They and their supporters argue that (a) TikTok has unique First Amendment rights, and (b) Americans use TikTok to share information and express themselves. (c) Because laws restricting TikTok ownership could lead to a reversal by the Chinese government. In the collective eyes of these Americans, this law violates the First Amendment rights of American users. Naturally, it quotes citizens united I support all these claims.

Before the 1970s, such arguments were clearly invalid. Restrictions on foreign government involvement in domestic politics are taken for granted throughout the world as a hallmark of sovereignty. Although TikTok emphasizes that it is a communications platform to strengthen its claim, sovereignty restrictions on foreign ownership are particularly concentrated in the communications industry. Argentina, Canada, USA, many other countries There are restrictions foreign ownership A television or radio network. TikTok is banned from official devices in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Austria, and completely banned in India due to its Chinese ownership. In November, the Canadian government required TikTok to dissolve its Canadian operations.

The Founding Fathers embedded restrictions on foreign government interference into the structure of the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton warned that “foreign powers will not remain idle bystanders.” They will intervene and the chaos will increase. ”Foreign remuneration clause; what we know wellIt prohibits federal employees from accepting payments from foreign governments, which President Trump has repeatedly violated. The high bar for treaty ratification arose from James Madison’s fear of “foreign powers” interfering in treaty negotiations.

U.S. law has consistently applied foreign ownership restrictions to the telecommunications sector. Driven by concerns that foreign adversaries would use wireless to influence policy, Congress passed the Federal Radio Act, giving wireless companies the power to license licenses, the predecessor to the FCC. , and added the following: 20% limit on foreign stock holdings Subject to the limitations of the 1912 Act. The Communications Act of 1934 includes a provision that prohibits foreign governments or their representatives from holding radio licenses. The constitutionality of these rules was taken for granted.

A series of cases in the 1970s had nothing to do with foreign ownership but everything to do with a new understanding of the First Amendment, and set the stage for the questions facing the court this week. Ta.

Two major events in the 1970s, Virginia Board of Pharmacy and Belottireframed the First Amendment as more than just the right to; talk But also, listen—Includes corporate speeches. The first case, brought by Ralph Nader and Public Citizen, established that companies cannot restrict drug advertising because consumers have a right to hear advertising. The second is Justice Powell’s opinion, with fierce dissent from famous radical William Rehnquist, that states should ban corporate speech because the public has a right to hear the political persuasion of banking companies. I concluded that it was not possible. referendum.