TikTok ban weakens First Amendment
Focal Foto
A law banning TikTok increases the government’s power to censor and endangers press freedom.
The Supreme Court upheld a law banning TikTok in the U.S., accepting the government’s argument that the national security threat posed by its foreign ownership justifies the ban.
While TikTok, like most social media companies, collects too much information on users, the truth is the government banned TikTok because it disagreed with the content on the app and didn’t want Americans to see it. Letting the government get away with banning TikTok based on vague “national security” concerns is dangerous and opens the door to targeting the press.
Featured Items
-
Why covering the prison system matters
Plus: No, TikTok is not regulated like the radio
-
TikTok should win its case — or we could all lose free speech online
Hating the social media platform isn’t a good reason to destroy the First Amendment for the entire internet
-
TikTok ban threatens journalism
Plus: Executioners find new ways to hide
-
‘Who are we to judge,’ ask … judges, upholding TikTok ban
We warned that the TikTok ban forgets the lessons of the Pentagon Papers case. Last week’s court decision upholding the law proved our point
-
Supreme Court reaffirms press precedent in social media cases
Decision in two cases challenging state laws that restrict social media content moderation contain important wins for journalists and news outlets, but questions on TikTok loom
-
Americans disturbed by Israel’s Al Jazeera ban should oppose censorship at home
The news outlet’s silencing serves as a cautionary tale for the U.S., following its flurry of censorial bills and court cases
-
TikTok ban would weaken press freedom
Here are the top five reasons why a new federal ban on TikTok violates the First Amendment
-
Congress can’t ban TikTok ‘just in case’
Barring the platform would set a precedent for all sorts of future censorship, including bans on foreign news sites
-
Unconstitutional TikTok ban would open the door to press censorship
Speculation about spying can’t justify restraining speech
