吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� The House Energy and Commerce Committee announced it would be voting on a bill this Thursday that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States. This bill, which was introduced by Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), would violate the First Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans who use the app to communicate and express themselves daily. 鈥淲e鈥檙e deeply disappointed that our leaders are once again attempting to trade our First Amendment rights for cheap political points during an election year,鈥� said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淛ust because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn鈥檛 about suppressing speech, there鈥檚 no denying that it would do just that. We strongly urge legislators to vote no on this unconstitutional bill.鈥� The ACLU has repeatedly explained that banning TikTok would have profound implications for our constitutional right to free speech and free expression because millions of Americans rely on the app every day for information, communication, advocacy, and entertainment. And the courts have agreed. In November 2023, a federal district court in Montana ruled that the state鈥檚 attempted ban would violate Montanans鈥� free speech rights and blocked it from going into effect. Like Montana鈥檚 blocked TikTok ban, this legislation would forbid app stores and internet service providers from offering TikTok so long as the company remains under foreign ownership. The proposed legislation would also let the President block other foreign-owned apps that they deem a national security threat.  

WASHINGTON 鈥� In a letter sent to the Montana House of Representatives today, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Montana, and half a dozen free speech and civil liberties organizations implored members to vote no on SB 419, a bill that would ban TikTok in the state of Montana, violating the First Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to communicate, gather information, and express themselves daily. As the letter to the Montana House makes clear, passing this legislation would flout the First Amendment and trample on Montanans鈥� constitutional right to freedom of speech. The government cannot impose a total ban on a communications platform like TikTok unless it is necessary to prevent extremely serious, immediate harm to national security. But there鈥檚 no public evidence of harm that would meet the high bar set by the U.S. and Montana Constitutions, and a total ban would not be the only option for addressing such harm if it did exist. Signatories include Americans for Prosperity Montana, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and TechFreedom. The following quotes are attributable to the legal and policy experts who signed on to this letter: 鈥淢ontana鈥檚 TikTok bill is censorship, plain and simple,鈥� said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU. 鈥淢ontanans deserve better than to have their representatives violate their free speech rights by cutting them off from a unique platform that allows them to speak their minds, exchange information, and learn new things.鈥� 鈥淭he bottom line is that this bill is censorship: The government and politicians have no right to control what technology goes on your phone,鈥� said David Herbst, state director of Americans for Prosperity - Montana. 鈥淣ational Security does not, nor should it ever, trump Montanan鈥檚 civil liberties. This bill is a step too far, and we urge lawmakers to reject this blatant government overreach.鈥� "Banning TikTok in Montana would raise serious First Amendment concerns and is not the appropriate way to protect the privacy of user's data or respond to content on the app that lawmakers disapprove of,鈥� said Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology. 鈥淲e urge the Montana legislature not to take this dangerous step toward limiting Montanans' ability to speak freely and receive information online." 鈥淢any Montanans use TikTok to communicate with local and global audiences,鈥� said Jason Kelley, interim director of activism at EFF. 鈥淭he state must not violate their rights by banning this speech platform.鈥� 鈥淢ontana should abandon this bill, which would restrict the free flow of information and ideas online,鈥� said Tyler Coward, senior legislative counsel at FIRE. 鈥淧rotecting user data from hostile foreign regimes may be a worthy goal, but the government has not shown that a sweeping ban of an entire forum for online speech is necessary to achieve it.鈥� 鈥淕overnment has long appealed to 鈥榥ational security interests鈥� to justify intrusions on protected First Amendment activity,鈥� said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom. 鈥淚t is a convenient justification that trades on fear and discourages close scrutiny of the alleged danger and the means by which the government seeks to address it. Legislatures must do the hard work of actually defining the harm and carefully tailoring any proposed resolutions, rather than aiming the flamethrower of moral panic at the First Amendment.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.

WASHINGTON 鈥� In a letter sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committees today, the American Civil Liberties Union has urged members to vote no on HR 1153, a bill introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) on Friday, that would effectively ban TikTok in the U.S., violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who use the app to communicate and express themselves daily. 鈥淐ongress must not censor entire platforms and strip Americans of their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. Whether we鈥檙e discussing the news of the day, live streaming protests, or 鈥嬧�媏ven watching cat videos, we have a right to use TikTok and other platforms to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people around the country and around the world,鈥� said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at ACLU. HR 1153 is intended to effectively ban TikTok in the U.S. 鈥� and could ban many other businesses and applications as well 鈥� by requiring the secretary of the treasury to forbid U.S. citizens from engaging with entities that 鈥渕ay鈥� transfer sensitive personal data to a foreign entity that is 鈥渟ubject to the influence of China.鈥� It would also require the president to impose sanctions on foreign entities operating software that is 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction or鈥� influence of China鈥� and that 鈥渕ay be facilitating鈥� a long list of activities by the Chinese government. Finally, the law would exempt 鈥渟ensitive personal data鈥� from the protection of the Berman Amendment. Passed in 1988, it鈥檚 what protects our right to receive information, regardless of what country that information was created in. That means the U.S. government can鈥檛 ban a book by a Chinese author simply because it鈥檚 from China 鈥� or in this case, you can鈥檛 ban a social media platform simply because the app is from a Chinese company. The bill text and markup notice were made available online just 48 hours before the scheduled markup, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee has never held a hearing on this bill. This lack of notice and transparency means there has been no time for lawmakers to ask questions or hear from outside experts who could explain the immense consequences of this vague and overbroad legislation. As the ACLU noted when former President Trump tried to ban TikTok nationally in 2020, selective bans of entire platforms 鈥渃ould 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. This interference with freedom of expression and association violates the First Amendment.鈥�

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