吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� The U.S. House of Representatives today passed H.R. 7521, a bill that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. The vote comes just one day after the American Civil Liberties Union and partners expressed serious constitutional concerns with the bill. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU, had the following reaction: 鈥淢ake no mistake: the House鈥檚 TikTok bill is a ban, and it鈥檚 blatant censorship. Today, the House of Representatives voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country. The Senate must reject this unconstitutional and reckless bill.鈥�

WASHINGTON 鈥� Only two days after introduction, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee voted unanimously on Thursday to advance a bill that would effectively ban TikTok in the U.S. The American Civil Liberties Union and its partners wrote a letter just yesterday to the committee outlining the constitutional concerns with the bill. The version passed out of committee today did not address any of those concerns. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU, issued the following statement: 鈥淲e are deeply disappointed that the committee chose to ignore the serious First Amendment concerns raised by civil liberties groups and instead voted to advance this bill that would silence over 170 million people around the country who use TikTok every day. As the flood of constituent calls to Congress confirms, TikTok is a vital platform for accessing information and expressing ourselves. When this bill comes to the floor for a vote, we urge representatives to stand up for free speech, and vote down this misguided bill.鈥�

WASHINGTON 鈥� In response to testimony from TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew addressing the insistence of some members of Congress that TikTok should be banned in the U.S., the American Civil Liberties Union said that blocking access to entire platforms would violate the First Amendment rights of the estimated 150 million Americans who use the platform daily. 鈥淏anning TikTok would violate the First Amendment. The government can鈥檛 impose this type of total ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious, immediate harm to national security. There鈥檚 no public evidence of that type of harm, and a ban would not be the only option for addressing that harm if it did exist,鈥� said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. 鈥淪elective bans of entire platforms would cut off the flow of information, art, and communication that social media provides, interfering with communities and connections users in the United States have with each other and with people around the world. In fact, many Americans on TikTok are using TikTok at this very moment to organize political action against an unconstitutional ban. This kind of political speech on TikTok is at the very core of what the First Amendment protects.鈥� In recent weeks lawmakers have proposed two different bills that would block American access to TikTok. One bill, known as the DATA Act, would enable the president to sanction foreign entities dealing in software that is 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction of鈥� or 鈥渋nfluence of鈥� China and that 鈥渕ay鈥� be facilitating a long list of activities by the Chinese government. Another bill, known as the RESTRICT Act, would grant the Secretary of Commerce new authority to mitigate undue risks to national security involving information and communications technology that a listed foreign adversary has an interest in. The ACLU has condemned both bills as a serious threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

Selectively banning entire platforms violates the First Amendment and does little to protect our personal data from abuse.