SCOTUS Rules in Favor of TikTok Ban as Some Supporters Realize It's a Bad Idea
"I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us," writes Justice Gorsuch.

ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of the popular social media app TikTok, was dealt a defeat by the Supreme Court on Friday. The justices ruled 9–0 that a forced sale of TikTok can proceed. If ByteDance does not agree to sell the app to an American buyer by Sunday, TikTok will be banned on U.S. smartphones.
The justices upheld Congress's forced sale of TikTok, writing in their per curiam opinion that the law is constitutional because it narrowly addresses a national security concern—the Chinese government's acquisition of American users' data—in a speech-neutral way. Even so, the decision expresses some concerns about whether this is actually the case, repeatedly noting that the Court had just a limited time frame to consider the case, which involves the application of cherished First Amendment norms to new technologies.
"As Justice Frankfurter advised 80 years ago in considering the application of established legal rules to the 'totally new problems' raised by the airplane and radio, we should take care not to 'embarrass the future,'" wrote the justices. "That caution is heightened in these cases, given the expedited time allowed for our consideration. Our analysis must be understood to be narrowly focused in light of these circumstances."
Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion expresses even larger qualms.
"Given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us," writes Gorsuch, who also notes that the Chinese government may simply use an alternative social media app to achieve the same results.
Indeed, the news that TikTok may very well go dark this weekend has already prompted millions of users to flee to other platforms, including Xiaohongshu and Lemon8; while it's not clear whether these apps pose the same national security concerns, a migration of U.S. users to them certainly appears to defeat the entire purpose of banning TikTok.
It may have dawned on some in Congress that this course of action represents a massive mistake. Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) now favors pausing the implementation of the ban so that ByteDance can have more time to find an American buyer. (Of course, it remains to be seen whether the company is even willing to sell.) President Joe Biden has said that he will not enforce the ban, given that the incoming administration—President-Elect Donald Trump—no longer supports it. Trump discussed a potential sale of TikTok with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is expected to attend Trump's inauguration on Monday. In the meantime, Biden's stated refusal to enforce the ban means that owners of U.S. smartphone app stores, such as Apple and Google, might decide to leave TikTok alone.
In other words, TikTok's status is very much up in the air. The few consistent, dissenting political figures who considered the banning of TikTok to be an attack on free speech—notably Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.)—can claim at least a limited tactical victory. However, even the supporters of banning TikTok now realize that this hasty course of action may very well prove counterproductive.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
hilarious how tied-in-knots the Chinese have us that this went all the way up the chain.
Idk, it looks like they did not anticipate nor desire the flood of Americans joining RedNote and spreading our Western social maladies.
Shouldn’t be that hard to reproduce TikTok with another app.
Or otherwise go without. And I don't mean, "Thou shalt not share short-form videos via interwebz." as much as "If we have support lines for gambling addiction and can forbid kids from buying booze and smokes, blocking this one, Nationally-Chinese-Owned company from promoting Castrate yourself videos to kids." isn't exactly a reach.
The part that blows my mind is the people on the sidelines like "I dunno..." Like we didn't just witness the DNC take control of media *within the law*, Musk force their hand so that it changes, and (some) people flock in order to turn Bluesky into a dumpster fire.
The idea that the continuation or fall of Western Democracy pivots on *this decision* and that it's definitively wrong, rather than the fact that 3/4 of the nation gives about as much of a shit about free speech as the CCP does, is laughable.
I still have yet to be told what data the Chinese government collects from TikTok that they can't purchase from Google, Facebook or YouTube.
Are you sure? Maybe you were told multiple times, but were too drunk to remember.
Why not install it and let us know if it adds a doxxing app?
I'm surprised that it's 9-0.
And this:
"it narrowly addresses a national security concern—the Chinese government's acquisition of American users' data—in a speech-neutral way."
Was the argument that I brought up last week as being a much stronger case than the 'Oh noes commie propaganda' one that keeps being put forward.
I'm not. There was never a 1a argument to be made which was their entire defense. It was always specious.
Corporate ownership isnt a speech issue. They should have tried other means against the law like it was particular to only them.
The 'Bills of Attainder' gambit would have been a much more easily argued defense, for certain.
There was never a 1a argument to be made which was their entire defense. It was always specious.
For logical, liberty-loving and/or individually-thinking free people. If your (or the) ultimate aim is to undermine the 1A, wittingly or not, with some "Borders are, like, an abstract social construct." post-modern, morally-relative, nihilist, useful idiot critical theory, LatinX hip-swiveling; it's not specious.
I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us,
Well golly. When in doubt, side with Big State
lol that sign is posted on the stairs coming out of the Supreme Court locker room
Is the SC locker room unisex?
until they are biologists, yes.
hopefully they provide a means for the xy contingent to shield their eyes from the image of their xx members... that is one locker room I wouldnt fantasize about being in
This is the same Gorbasuch who helped Long Dong, Palito, KKKavanaugh and Mutterkreuz stomp on individual rights for women. Some states have since added communist Romanian girl-bullying laws like Ceausescu enforced before he and the mizzus were riddled with bullets. Iran has Texas-Ceausescu abortion laws and someone just unfrocked two of their Boss judges and winged a third.
And of course, the brain dead mouthpiece of whoever is running the country simply says "I will not enforce that law".
It may have dawned on some in Congress that this course of action represents a massive mistake. Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) now favors pausing the implementation of the ban so that ByteDance can have more time to find an American buyer. (Of course, it remains to be seen whether the company is even willing to sell.) President Joe Biden has said that he will not enforce the ban
So if we needed this to protect our national security, why don't we need to enforce it?
This just shows how much thought government puts to taking away freedom.
Sotomayor was heard claiming “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.” from tik tok. Bayer chimed in, we had "750 million new accounts yesterday or close to that."
Does it really matter that Biden won't enforce the ban?
The next time a kid dies by ingesting cyanide from some tik tok game, the parents might sue every platform that didn't removing the tik tok app from the store.
Didn't J Biden* sign the bill to ban TikTok in the first place?
LOL!
*Jill or Joe, who fucking knows?
"... given the expedited time allowed for our consideration ..." and "Given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have ..."
I would like to give the Supremes an IQ test before allowing them to make any more crucial Constitutional rulings in America, please! Only an idiot would fail to realize that if you're not confident in your choice; if you haven't been given long enough to come to a carefully reasoned opinion; then the only proper thing to do is refuse to uphold the new law until you have had time to properly consider the matter! None of this was an emergency. Whatever threat there might be to the "national security" from TikTok has been there for several years. There has been nothing new since before the new law was passed that could possibly have made it into an emergency. Delaying the implementation of the new regulation by issuing a temporary injunction until the possible embarrassment to future generations could be pondered would have had no downside here. Sigh. I guess future generations will simply have to be embarrassed for our generation.
What is so crucial about this ruling?
Also you know there were two concurrent opinions correct? Lol. I know you don't know that.
I would like to give the Supremes an IQ test
Start with Jackson. Ask her what a woman is.
I'm waiting for it to dawn on the states that unleashing the federal government from limits in the original articles of confederation was a massive mistake.
This is a retarded, if not *the* most retarded, ultramodernist assumed outcome of the proposed pivot point to your proposed alternate history.
The idea that we would have The States today to lament, e.g., the Tariff of 1789 were unable to conceptualized, let alone passed, is just stupid.
Well since this 'national concern' apparently is none of the peoples business I'd say SCOTUS just F'Ed up BIG TIME on this case.
Why can't SCOTUS do their F'En job and at least pretend to LIMIT the power of the government?
Watch Brazil. The same communist China now running Brazil's grain belt port--and building its own port in Ecuador--bought Tencent and now runs all youth-indoctrinating "free" videogames. The installer puts instructions into the kernel few are competent to diagnose or remove. Gamers poked it and discovered the warez contain filters to reject "Tiananmen Square", "Wuhan lab" and who-knows-what else. Censorship is an impolite term, so look for another translation of Gleichschaltung.