Richardcyoung.com

  • Home
  • Debbie Young
  • Jimmy Buffett
  • Key West
  • Your Survival Guy
  • How We Are Different
  • Paris
  • About Us
    • Foundation Principles
    • Contributors
  • Investing
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
  • The Swiss Way
  • My Rifles
  • Dividends and Compounding
  • Your Security
  • Dick Young
  • Dick’s R&B Top 100
  • Liberty & Freedom Map
  • Bank Credit & Money
  • Your Survival Guy’s Super States
  • NNT & Cholesterol
  • Your Health
  • Ron Paul
  • US Treasury Yield Curve: My Favorite Investor Tool
  • Anti-Gun Control
  • Anti-Digital Currency
  • Joel Salatin & Alfie Oakes
  • World Gold Mine Production
  • Fidelity & Wellington Since 1971
  • Hillsdale College
  • Babson College
  • Contact Us

Is a TikTok Ban Constitutional?

March 20, 2024 By The Editors

By W. Scott McGill @ Shutterstock.com

With a TikTok ban working its way through Congress, Jennifer Huddleston asks a question it seems many representatives seem to have overlooked, is a TikTok ban constitutional? She writes at the Cato Institute:

Last Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee “favorably reported” a new bill that could ban popular social media app TikTok, if conditions for a forced sale are not met. Advocates of the bill often point to concerns about national security either related to potential Chinese access to American data or to concerns about the potential influence that the Chinese might assert over the algorithm of a popular app.

In a recent joint interview with Republican Senator Marco Rubio, Democrat Senator Mark Warner said, “We might have slightly different ways on how we go at this, but we think this is a national security issue.” Other government officials like FBI Director Christopher Wray point to a Chinese law that requires companies to “do whatever the government wants them to in terms of sharing information or serving as a tool of the Chinese government” as a key reason for national security concerns.

Supporters of the bill are quick to state it is not a “ban,” but the bill does threaten a ban if its conditions are not met. The bill raises serious concerns for speech as well as for future government interventions into social media.

What Does the Bill Actually Do?

HR 7521, Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, prohibits the distribution, maintenance, or updating of an app “controlled by a foreign adversary” within 180 days of the bill’s enactment unless a “qualified divestiture”—a sale approved by the government’s executive branch to alleviate the underlying concerns—occurs. The bill presumes that TikTok and parent company ByteDance already meet the “controlled by a foreign adversary” standard by naming the app and its parent company multiple times.

Unlike past proposals, the bill provides an option for a sale rather than an immediate ban; however, it creates concerning conditions in that regard as well. The proposal requires the divestiture to be approved by the government, meaning that any proposed buyer would likely be open to significant regulatory scrutiny, particularly given the government’s current positioning towards acquisitions in the tech industry. But still, this distinction will likely be important in any legal challenges to the act even if, in practice, it is unlikely to be different from a true ban.

What Is the Standard and How Might It Apply to This Bill?

As I have discussed in the past, calls to ban TikTok typically raise constitutional concerns not only over potential government actions’ impact on TikTok but also for the potential impact on the First Amendment rights of other companies (like the American‐​owned app stores that carry the app) and its users. Americans would lose a platform they have chosen for expression and app stores would have dictated to them what they could not carry by the government.

Under First Amendment precedents, the government will need to prove that forced divestment or otherwise banning of the app is both based on a compelling government interest and represents the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. In December, a federal district court enjoined a TikTok ban in Montana on First Amendment grounds as it was “unlikely to pass even intermediate scrutiny.” Restrictions on the use of the app on government‐​owned devices presents related but distinct legal questions and have not yet resulted in legal challenges.

A few key questions about its constitutionality would remain, assuming this latest proposal was signed into law. As noted, the courts would have to determine if the government had a compelling national security interest at stake. And those concerns would have to be much more specific than the vague connections often alleged.

Even if the courts found the government’s interest to be compelling, they would then consider if there are less restrictive steps the government could take to resolve its national security concerns, such as the data localization steps proposed by TikTok’s Project Texas.

Given the risk that other measures with fewer consequences for speech could likely be deemed sufficient given current publicly available evidence, the government would need to build a much stronger case to show such extreme measures are necessary.

Implications of the Proposal for Users’ and Other Companies’ Speech

TikTok has proven to be an immensely popular app with a unique audience, with an estimated 1.5 billion monthly users worldwide; about 150 million Americans subscribe to TikTok. While other platforms may provide similar opportunities, TikTok’s users have found the app to be their preferred choice for expressing themselves. The presence of other platforms for short‐​form video does not eliminate the concerns of the government foreclosing a platform for speech.

The proposal also has significant impact not only on TikTok but on American companies. Much of the burden for executing such a ban will fall not on TikTok but on the US companies that allow its distribution through various platforms such as app stores and web browsers. As a result, the government is potentially dictating to these companies what information or products they can or cannot carry in their store. Such a position would be anathema to many in the offline world and it should be viewed for what it is in the online world as well.

Conclusion

While many may be quick to point out that the latest TikTok “ban” is not a complete ban the way prior proposals were, the underlying First Amendment concerns remain. There remains an ongoing process with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to determine what, if any, steps are needed to further protect American data or resolve any other potential concerns. Such a process was designed to make these determinations and would provide evidence of what actions, if any, are necessary related to concerns about foreign ties.

Individuals may come to different conclusions about their personal data security and TikTok, but government intervention must meet a high bar of proof before engaging in such a significant regulation of speech.

Read more here.

If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.

Related Posts

  • Pompeo Says the U.S. Government Could Ban TikTok and other Chinese Apps
  • America: A Constitutional Republic
  • Constitutional Scholars
  • M855 Ammo Ban
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
The Editors
The Editors
The Editors
Latest posts by The Editors (see all)
  • NYC’s Mamdani: The More You Know, the Worse It Gets - June 30, 2025
  • Iran’s Invincibility Crumbles in Just Hours - June 26, 2025
  • Stealth, Speed, and Strength: The U.S. Air Force Bomber Triad - June 25, 2025

Dick Young’s Must Reads

  • The Four Most Important Words in Investing
  • My Favorite Arrondissements in Paris
  • Government Should Be Small, Laws Unobtrusive, and Men Left Alone
  • “Then One Day the Grandfather was Gone”
  • The Simple, Elegant Power of the Retirement Compounders
  • Sen. Hawley Makes the Case Against U.S.-China Relationship
  • The Biden Cabal Wants to Stop the Use of Clean, Safe, Domestic Natural Gas
  • Life: When Others Resent You for Your Success
  • Your Survival Guy Prefers Bombardier’s Global Express 7500
  • The Forgotten America

Our Most Popular Posts

  • Donald Trump’s “Faithful Execution of Law”
  • Iran’s Lost Advantage
  • How Was the Trip?
  • Who Wants War with Iran? Not the American People
  • Oil Shock? Not So Much
  • Richard C. Young’s Intelligence Report from Feb. 1987
  • Allowing Free People to Make a Democratic Choice
  • Will Trump Escalate after Iran's Response?
  • U.S.–Iran Tensions Soar Following Nuclear Site Bombings
  • “Off the Table”

Compensation was paid to utilize rankings. Click here to read full disclosure.

RSS Youngresearch.com

  • Work to Retirement #11: Whatcha Gonna Do?
  • Canada Rescinds Tech Tax, Resumes Trade Talks with U.S.
  • US Investment Gap Narrows in Q1
  • Why the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Could Fix America’s Broken Grid
  • Smartphone Satellite Communications Are Here
  • Income Falls as Government Cuts Welfare Spending
  • US and China Finalize Rare Earth Trade Deal
  • GPS Jamming Disrupts Strait of Hormuz Despite Ceasefire
  • Could Blue Blob New York City Get a Lot Worse?
  • Economic Fundamentals Show Stability Beneath GDP Decline

RSS Yoursurvivalguy.com

  • Every Family Should Own at Least One Shotgun: Here Are Three
  • What’s the Best Gun for Home Defense?
  • Work to Retirement #11: Whatcha Gonna Do?
  • Smartphone Satellite Communications Are Here
  • What’s Your Backup Internet Plan?
  • How Does Internet from Space Work?
  • Stein Vetoes NC’s Constitutional Carry Bill
  • Can the Golden Dome Save America from an EMP Attack?
  • Could Blue Blob New York City Get a Lot Worse?
  • Warning! Your Survival Guy’s on a Boil Water Advisory

US Treasury Yield Curve: My Favorite Investor Tool

My Key West Garden Office

Your Retirement Life: Traveling the Efficient Frontier

Live a Long Life

Your Survival Guy’s Mt. Rushmore of Investing Legends

“Then One Day the Grandfather was Gone”

Copyright © 2025 | Terms & Conditions | About Us | Dick Young | Archives