In 2024, President Biden signed a bill requiring TikTok to be sold to an American entity within 180 days, or it would be banned from operating in the United States.
Do Americans Love Using TikTok? Why Do They Care?
- TikTok has 170 million U.S. users, representing 50% of the total U.S. population.
- TikTok has become the primary news source for Generation Z.
- Among those under 30, TikTok usage time increased by 225% in 2023 compared to 2020.
Even If Americans Love It, Why Would the U.S. Congress Want to Ban It?
TikTok could be the most effective tool for brainwashing Americans. Why?
During the peak of the Hong Kong protests, Instagram had 132,000 related hashtags, while TikTok had only 762—a ratio of 180 to 1.
For Covid-related accountability (including origins, etc.), the Instagram-to-TikTok ratio was 400 to 1.
Searching "#ChineseVirus" on Instagram yields 79,353 results, while TikTok has none.
In contrast, for popular culture videos like Taylor Swift, the Instagram-to-TikTok ratio remains stable at 2:1.
One of TikTok’s vice presidents, Zhang Fuping (Party Secretary and Chief Content Editor), stated in an interview that his role is to ensure TikTok adheres to the correct political direction.
Leaked internal TikTok documents revealed the use of location data to monitor the movements of journalists.
According to Republican lawmakers, they possess additional confidential data—yet to be disclosed publicly—that suggests TikTok is not just a platform for uploading dance, singing, or comedy videos but a tool for Chinese political propaganda and a major part of their global influence campaign.
Just Ban It, Pass a Law, Right? What’s the Difficulty?
In 2020, Trump attempted to ban TikTok in the U.S. via an executive order, but U.S. courts deemed it an overreach of authority.
Since an executive order didn’t work, what about legislation? Is that difficult?
Would legislation infringe on free speech?
To avoid infringing on free speech, U.S. lawmakers made significant efforts, ultimately passing this law. The law doesn’t directly “ban” TikTok from operating in the U.S. Instead, it:
Prohibits “foreign adversary entities” from operating TikTok. In other words, the issue isn’t TikTok itself but its operation by foreign adversaries. As long as it’s operated by Americans, it complies with the law.
This approach was taken to avoid violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech, should a direct order to remove TikTok be issued.
Can this roundabout method effectively avoid being unconstitutional?
The answer is likely yes. Why?
The U.S. already has similar regulations, such as Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934 (the "Foreign Ownership Rule"), which governs foreign ownership of communication licenses (e.g., TV stations, radio). It prohibits foreign individuals, governments, representatives, foreign companies, or U.S. companies with direct or indirect foreign control from holding such licenses.
This regulation has undergone several revisions but maintains its core principle: foreign entities or individuals can only hold communication licenses after individual review and approval.
Does Prohibiting Foreign Entities from Holding U.S. Communication Licenses Violate Free Speech?
There are no significant court cases indicating that Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934 (the "Foreign Ownership Rule") violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
Thus, legislation requiring foreign entities to relinquish ownership of specific apps is highly likely to be constitutional. After all, if traditional information sources like TV channels require special ownership reviews, the same can reasonably apply to apps that people now use to access information.
Conclusion
- U.S. lawmakers made substantial efforts to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution.
- U.S. lawmakers passed a national protection bill with an overwhelming majority.
- Taiwanese lawmakers????
We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.