红杏视频

In April 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Although the law is styled as a requirement that TikTok鈥檚 parent company, ByteDance, sell the social media platform to an approved buyer, it is functionally a ban on TikTok. The Act provides that if TikTok is not sold within the timeframe specified by Congress, it will be unlawful for app stores in the United States to distribute, maintain, or update the platform.

TikTok, ByteDance, and a group of TikTok creators challenged the ban in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on May 7, 2024. They argue that the law violates TikTok鈥檚 and its users鈥� First Amendment rights by shuttering a unique speech platform. TikTok also argues that by unfairly singling out a single platform for adverse treatment, the law violates its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. The government has defended its effort to ban TikTok by citing concerns that the Chinese government might direct ByteDance, which is headquartered in China, to covertly manipulate the content that U.S. users view on TikTok or might demand access to Americans鈥� sensitive data collected by the app.

The D.C. Circuit upheld the law on December 6, 2024, and TikTok, ByteDance, and the TikTok creators filed emergency applications for a temporary injunction with the Supreme Court on December 16, 2024. The 红杏视频, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute filed an amicus brief in support of an injunction the following day. On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and set an expedited schedule. The parties filed their briefs on December 27, 2024, and the 红杏视频, EFF, and a larger group of partner organizations filed an amicus brief the same day.

As the 红杏视频 and its partners explain in their amicus briefs, under the First Amendment, we all have the right to speak freely and to receive information from others. To ban an entire communications platform used by tens of millions of Americans, the government must meet an extraordinarily high bar: It must show that the ban is the only way to prevent serious, imminent harm to national security, and that the ban limits no more speech than necessary to accomplish that purpose. But the government has not put forward actual evidence of impending harm鈥攐nly speculation about what might occur鈥攏or has it shown that banning TikTok is narrowly tailored to address its concerns. The government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� does not lessen its burden under the First Amendment. To the contrary, history has shown that courts must be vigilant in the face of broad claims that national security requires trampling on Americans constitutional rights.

We urge the court to strike down the ban on TikTok and to protect the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform to communicate, learn about the world, and express themselves online.