9

My assumption has always been that government mandated blockage of any website is not allowed in the US as it was an "abridging the freedom of speech".

Is the banning of websites within the US legally different than the banning of specific applications from an app store? Can the US government ban the accessing of certain websites?

First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have been made aware that more generalized questions may reflect the true nature of this Legality.

I think this question is still good to keep up as it has an answer. However, I feel like these do better reflect the overall question.

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    This question is similar to: Can the federal government prohibit the publication of software it does not like?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
    – littleadv
    Commented Nov 26 at 7:03
  • 1
    @littleadv I think you are correct. This is somewhat to a specific instance but my question can be asked better. I have read "I've thought better of my question; can I delete it?" and think it may be best to leave this one up as it is answered but post a secondary question.
    – user2231142
    Commented Nov 26 at 7:07
  • This question can also broken up better into three different questions. I will work on ensuring those are sent instead.
    – user2231142
    Commented Nov 26 at 7:18
  • Your title says "the ban of TikTok" but your body talks about "banning of websites". The ban you are talking about does not ban any websites. The ban you are talking about does not prevent the TikTok website from continuing to be used inside the US, nor does it prevent the TikTok app from continuing to be used inside the US if you have it.
    – user102008
    Commented Nov 26 at 17:05
  • 2
    >> My assumption has always been that government mandated blockage of any website is not allowed in the US as it was an "abridging the freedom of speech". << Would you consider hosting child pornography as freedom of speech?
    – infinitezero
    Commented Nov 27 at 8:52

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
35

In the case of a proposed TikTok ban (at least by the U.S., other country's reasons may vary), the ban is not primarily directed at the content provided by the TikTok users. Indeed, generally, proposed TikTok bans allow for the sale of the platform to a U.S. based third-party, with the new owners providing essentially the same online experience with the same content as TikTok does today.

The primary concern is that the particular firm that owns and runs TikTok is engaged in illegal conduct, basically, espionage, for a foreign country (i.e. the People's Republic of China), using the TikTok app for improper means. Basically, the TikTok app is a form of spyware.

I personally have no idea if these allegations are really true. But legislative action to ban it is based upon a legislative judgment that these allegations are true and pose a threat to national security.

This certainly could be happening. For example, the mobile phone game "Angry Birds" was used for improper purposes, not by the firm that created it, but because a hacker was able to steal geolocation data and other personal information about huge numbers of people, from that firm without its knowledge. This was made possible as a result of lax cyber security by a firm that was, after all, not engaged in an activity we associate with the need for high security (i.e. running a mobile game app). Doing it on purpose with the permission of the firm owning/running the app would be easier.

Banning a firm for improper or illegal practices is very different from a ban based upon the content that is exchanged on a platform, which in all likelihood would violate the First Amendment.

Improve this answer
13
  • 8
    @ToddWilcox No, because the tiktok ban isn't about speech but commerce.
    – Trish
    Commented Nov 26 at 14:37
  • 4
    @ToddWilcox "Would it improve this answer to include why/how/when such uses are considered to be speech that is not protected?" There are full semester law school courses on that topic.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 26 at 15:01
  • 3
    @ToddWilcox the No is on the basic premise, that this needs to be extended. It's clear enough: this all is not about speech
    – Trish
    Commented Nov 26 at 15:06
  • 3
    @kaya3 A legitimate justification, like illegal conduct that threatens national security, can have side effects. But, given that most of the proposals allow a U.S. firm to take over the same platform, it is hard to see how that would be content regulating. Some bills may indeed by content oriented (and there are some kinds of conduct that can be restricted). But the bulk of folks seeking to ban TikTok don't seem to havee that as their motivation. The fact that a few people voting for it have an impermissible motive doesn't render the law invalid.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 26 at 18:03
  • 3
    @kaya3 Laws are allowed to be stupid or flawed and still constitutional.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 27 at 18:18
22

Who's speaking? Not Tiktok.

Congress may not make a law that bans protected speech, but the proposed law is not about the speech of Tiktok, it's all about commerce: it just bans a company from operating in the US while owned by a Chinese company. That is fully legal and precedented. Did you know the FCC Broadcast Ownership rules made it illegal to own a newspaper and a TV station for a long time? And that until 2013, foreign media couldn't make their normal broadcast availeable to the US legally under the Smith-Mundt Act, and that it is still illegal for a foreign media to focus all its broadcasts at the US?

Those are not restrictions of speech, they are restrictions on commerce and ownership. Banning Tiktok in the US while under Chinese ownership is just a new commercial law, not one that impacts or implicates Tiktok's speech.

Improve this answer
2
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here.
    – Pat W. ♦
    Commented Nov 28 at 12:22
  • Note that the D.C. Circuit has decided this question. The court concludes that the law is a restriction on TikTok's speech -- albeit a permissible one. TikTok Inc. v. Garland, No. 24-1113, 26 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (“The Act plainly singles out that expressive activity by indirectly subjecting TikTok - and so far, only TikTok - to the divestiture requirement.”).
    – bdb484
    Commented yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .